(OT)[OT] UCLA student tortured on camera
Desertphile
has become will get an education by viewing the viedo at
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/11/16/ucla-student-tasered-in-library/
It was so brutal and abusive that I could not watch it all.
UCPD officers shot a student several times with a Taser inside the
Powell Library CLICC computer lab late Tuesday night before taking him
into custody. At around 11:30 p.m., CSOs asked a male student using a
computer in the back of the room to leave when he was unable to produce
a BruinCard during a random check. The student did not exit the
building immediately.
Video shot from a student's camera phone captured the student yelling,
"Here's your Patriot Act, here's your f&*$ing abuse of power," while he
struggled [sic] with the officers.
"It was the most disgusting and vile act I had ever seen in my life,"
said David Remesnitsky, a 2006 UCLA alumnus who witnessed the incident.
hamilton
Desertphile wrote:
> Yeah, I know it's off-topic. You lot who wonder how fucked up the USA
> has become will get an education by viewing the viedo at
> http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/11/16/ucla-student-tasered-in-library/
>
> It was so brutal and abusive that I could not watch it all.
>
the papers and such, though. Can you walk after being tasered?
Desertphile, you recently mentioned a Hillerman book. I kind of had
you pegged as an Edward Abbey type -that's a compliment or meant as
one, anyway. Hillerman's Navajo books are fine but a little repetitive
for me.
sharon
Desertphile wrote:
> Yeah, I know it's off-topic. You lot who wonder how fucked up the USA
> has become will get an education by viewing the viedo at
> http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/11/16/ucla-student-tasered-in-library/
>
> It was so brutal and abusive that I could not watch it all.
>
Los Angeles. Rodney King beating. Right.
Good lord.
http://www.morebadcopnews.com/bad_cop_news/california/
http://www.morebadcopnews.com/bad_cop_news/south-carolina/
http://www.morebadcopnews.com/bad_cop_news/wisconsin/
http://www.morebadcopnews.com/bad_cop_news/ <0o0>- Your State Here.
Includes Australia and the Department of Homeland Insecurity
r norman
wrote:
Every author gets repetitive. I have read 15+ Hillerman books and
didn't tire until the tenth or twelfth. I only got through a half
dozen Terry Pratchett Discworld works before giving up and Carl
Hiassen lasted only three. One Dostoyevsky did it.
But then I am familiar with Navajo country and love visiting there and
I tend to read Hillerman with a very detailed map of the area in front
of me and often enough say to myself, "Hey, I drove down that road!"
r norman
wrote:
This is, of course, displacement activity induced by not wishing to
deal with the brutality depicted in the true subject of the thread.
Scooter the Mighty
Hey man, at least he's not being tortured in a secret prison by the
CIA. Even better, he's not a teenage girl who got her head cut off and
the head of a dog sewn onto her body by the Shia death squads our
president has installed in Iraq, or one of the hundreds of people
who've been killed by these same death squads by having hundreds of
holes drilled in their bodies. Theres a lot of people these days who
wish they were only being tasered by fascist police. My, aren't I
cheerful.
Ross Langerak
"hamilton" <kwando...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1163724040.9...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Desertphile wrote:
> > Yeah, I know it's off-topic. You lot who wonder how fucked up the USA
> > has become will get an education by viewing the viedo at
> >
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/11/16/ucla-student-tasered-in-library/
> >
> > It was so brutal and abusive that I could not watch it all.
> >
> I couldn't watch it either. I will try to watch what happens next in
> the papers and such, though. Can you walk after being tasered?
Yes. As a general rule, police officers go through the experience of being
tasered before they are allowed to use tasers. It usually puts a suspect
down long enough to cuff them. If the suspect wouldn't stand up, it was
because he wanted to make a scene.
John Wilkins
It's worth noting that a taser shock will cause you large muscles to
become inoperative. He simply couldn't have stood up. So they
effectively tortured him as an exercise in authority abuse.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
Glenn
Ross Langerak wrote:
> "hamilton" <kwando...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1163724040.9...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Desertphile wrote:
> > > Yeah, I know it's off-topic. You lot who wonder how fucked up the USA
> > > has become will get an education by viewing the viedo at
> > >
> http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/11/16/ucla-student-tasered-in-library/
> > >
> > > It was so brutal and abusive that I could not watch it all.
> > >
> > I couldn't watch it either. I will try to watch what happens next in
> > the papers and such, though. Can you walk after being tasered?
>
> Yes. As a general rule, police officers go through the experience of being
> tasered before they are allowed to use tasers. It usually puts a suspect
> down long enough to cuff them. If the suspect wouldn't stand up, it was
> because he wanted to make a scene.
>
but from the screams and activity I doubt that the officers didn't
encounter physical resistance showing he could have stood up had he
been willing to cooperate. Serious business of late, unauthorized
persons acting wierd and uncooperative. Add in combative, and it's a
recipe. Pulling back and yelling don't touch me would likely be seen as
willingness to fight. I'd say the little snot should try the prank in
an airport next. And take the idiot "Desertphile" with him. Or send
them both someplace where there are "real" policemen.
Inez
Yes, we need more manly "real" policemen like that, it would make the
world a better place.
I'm curious, how does it feel to be a compassionate Christian? Does
the thought of people you don't like being hurt give you an especially
nice erection?
Glenn
Well at least you got one thing right, you are curious.
I don't know the kid, but I don't like what he did, and I don't like
what Desertphile and you intimate about my country. I would rather that
the world was a better place, a nicer place, and it would be if people
didn't behave the way the kid did, and you and Desertphile do.
Policemen serve a needed function, and their jobs are very dangerous. A
bit of advice, loon, if a policeman tells you to do something, just do
it without fight. That includes no yelling or cussing, no telling
police not to do something, no pulling away. If you want to "peacefully
sit in", don't resist efforts of the police to pick you up and move
you. The amount of pain you *will* experience if you do not, will be up
to you. And if you think there is a possibility of abuse, I suggest you
be even more careful in how you act and talk. If you don't, policemen
have no other recourse than to think that the potential of their safety
and that of the public's being compromised becomes greater. Perhaps a
curious person such as yourself would understand this: if you think the
bad policeman might hurt you, don't fuck with him or her. Don't break
laws, don't endanger other's lives, and make the world a better place,
instead of being one of it's problems. Especially in the world we live
in today. Cooperate. Put another flower in your hair and moon a goat.
Then you might help the world. You certainly won't by talking shit
about compassion and the "manly" bugger man.
sharon
Glenn wrote:
> Inez wrote:
> Well at least you got one thing right, you are curious.
>
> I don't know the kid, but I don't like what he did, and I don't like
> what Desertphile and you intimate about my country. I would rather that
> the world was a better place, a nicer place, and it would be if people
> didn't behave the way the kid did, and you and Desertphile do.
> Policemen serve a needed function, and their jobs are very dangerous. A
true. i have friends who are law enforcement officers. my dad is
deceased senior chief engineman, USN. 20 active/10 reserve. very proud
of that.
http://www.ronie-mooney-encs.us/law_enforcement/
that's the local chief of police and deputy posing before my wee law
enforcement insignia. It's been in papers and news when drug bust and
other crimes reported. pretty, isn't it? lots of time, money, writing
depts. around country / world... yeah, I love law enforcement too.
but sometimes cops turn crook and get busted themselves. and sometimes
they exercise "excessive force" when its unnecessary. if they wanted to
take the guy in, imaginably, they could've done it (several men vs. one
student) without tazing him the first time. was he threatening them?
did he use force on the law officers? I watched the entire video, maybe
I am wrong, but I did not see where he acted violently toward the
officers, just made a lot of fuss. After watching dozens of COPS
episodes, one or two cops are usually enough to apprehend a fleeing,
and combative suspect --and oddly, never using their tazer.
sharon
sharon wrote:
> Glenn wrote:
> > Inez wrote:
>
> > Well at least you got one thing right, you are curious.
> >
> > I don't know the kid, but I don't like what he did, and I don't like
> > what Desertphile and you intimate about my country. I would rather that
> > the world was a better place, a nicer place, and it would be if people
> > didn't behave the way the kid did, and you and Desertphile do.
> > Policemen serve a needed function, and their jobs are very dangerous. A
>
> true. i have friends who are law enforcement officers. my dad is
> deceased senior chief engineman, USN. 20 active/10 reserve. very proud
> of that.
> http://www.ronie-mooney-encs.us/law_enforcement/
> that's the local chief of police and deputy posing before my wee law
sergeant!!!!
Inez
Reality is often disappointing. Grownups learn to deal with it.
> I would rather that
> the world was a better place, a nicer place, and it would be if people
> didn't behave the way the kid did, and you and Desertphile do.
But you're OK with people inflicting pain on us, huh?
> Policemen serve a needed function, and their jobs are very dangerous.
Yes, I'm sure they were in terror of the danger posed by the college
student lying on the floor.
> A
> bit of advice, loon, if a policeman tells you to do something, just do
> it without fight. That includes no yelling or cussing, no telling
> police not to do something, no pulling away.
Police aren't really allowed unlimited authority to boss people around
and hurt them if they don't obey. These particular policemen are
probably winding up in deep trouble for their brutality even as I type,
which is how it should be.
> If you want to "peacefully
> sit in", don't resist efforts of the police to pick you up and move
> you. The amount of pain you *will* experience if you do not, will be up
> to you. And if you think there is a possibility of abuse, I suggest you
> be even more careful in how you act and talk. If you don't, policemen
> have no other recourse than to think that the potential of their safety
> and that of the public's being compromised becomes greater.
This is a bunch of cowardly nonsense. If the man were waving a weapon
or something, you might have a bit of a point, but policemen are not
allowed to taser people just because they don't like them. I'm sorry if
this interferes with your S&M fantasies.
chris.li...@gmail.com
Witness the first step in the loss of your civil liberties. "If you
don't want the shit beat out of you, do what the cops say."
Chris
sharon
One of the proudest days in my life, regards my Dad.
http://www.ronie-mooney-encs.us/salute.html
Both Navy and Army honor guard. Many kind words have been sent from his
minesweeper buddies. He was well loved and respected.
Law enforcement like the ones at UCLA bring shame on all decent law
enforcement and military officers, like my Dad, who were good honest
men who served to protect their country.
Matt Silberstein
"chris.li...@gmail.com" <chris.li...@gmail.com> in
<1163793164.7...@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Such as the cops threatening people who asked for their badge numbers.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
Occidental
> Yeah, I know it's off-topic. You lot who wonder how fucked up the USA
> has become will get an education by viewing the viedo at
> http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/11/16/ucla-student-tasered-in-library/
Lawyer: Student hit by Taser thought officer was racial profiling
Friday, November 17, 2006 05 14 AM
(11-17) 05:14 PST Los Angeles (AP) --
A student shocked with a Taser gun by a campus police officer after
refusing requests to show his ID card thought he was being singled out
because of his Middle Eastern appearance, his lawyer said.
Attorney Stephen Yagman said he plans to file a federal civil rights
lawsuit accusing the UCLA police of "brutal excessive force," as well
as false arrest stemming from the Tuesday night incident at a campus
library.
Yagman's client, Mostafa Tabatabainejad, was shocked as police did a
routine check of student IDs at the University of California, Los
Angeles Powell Library computer lab.
Yagman said Tabatabainejad declined to produce his school ID because he
thought he was being targeted because of his appearance. The
23-year-old senior is of Iranian descent but is a U.S.-born resident of
Los Angeles.
Tabatabainejad eventually decided to leave the library but fell limp on
the floor when an officer escorting him out wouldn't take his hand off
him, Yagman said. Tabatabainejad didn't want to participate in what he
considered was a case of racial profiling, the lawyer said.
The student started yelling and screaming after police started using
the Taser to gather attention and get the officer to stop, according to
Yagman.
"Generally, police don't want to do their dirties in front of a lot of
witnesses," he said.
But police have said Tabatabainejad encouraged others at the library to
join his resistance, and when a crowd began to gather, an officer used
the stun gun on him. They said it was long-standing policy to ask
students to show ID at libraries late at night to keep the campus safe.
Tabatabainejad was arrested for resisting and obstructing a police
officer and later released on his own recognizance.
The incident was recorded on another student's camera phone and showed
Tabatabainejad screaming while on the floor of the computer lab. It was
the third incident in a month in which police behavior in the city was
criticized after amateur video surfaced. The other two involved the Los
Angeles Police Department.
UCLA's interim chancellor, Norman Abrams, urged the public to withhold
judgment while the campus police department investigates.
Student activists were planning a midday rally Friday to protest the
incident, and several civil rights organizations including Amnesty
International and the Council on American-Islamic Relations were
calling for an independent review.
LA Times
Inez
He sounds like a jerk, but it really isn't the police's duty to inflict
manners on people.
Desertphile
hamilton wrote:
> Desertphile wrote:
> > Yeah, I know it's off-topic. You lot who wonder how fucked up the USA
> > has become will get an education by viewing the viedo at
> > http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/11/16/ucla-student-tasered-in-library/
> >
> > It was so brutal and abusive that I could not watch it all.
> I couldn't watch it either. I will try to watch what happens next in
> the papers and such, though. Can you walk after being tasered?
Just this morning two people told me, in my face, that the student
tasered deserved it because he did not produce ID when ordered to do
so.
There are several different types of tasers: the big ones render a
person incapable of walking, or even crawling--- it knocks a person
unconscious. The small ones, which some damn fools sell to women, are
very painful but do not incapactitate.
> Desertphile, you recently mentioned a Hillerman book. I kind of had
> you pegged as an Edward Abbey type -that's a compliment or meant as
> one, anyway. Hillerman's Navajo books are fine but a little repetitive
> for me.
Indeed, Abbey is the only God that I recognize. I have taken Abbey's
example with his more liberating and insightful acts, trying to be as
helpful as he was. I have walking into Mayor Chavez's office in
Albuquerque (unanounced, unwelcomed alas, and without warning) and
demand he build a wall around the city to keep new people from coming
in, and to toss outside over the wall all of the undesirables that
currently reside within: there ain't enough water for everyone, I
pointed out. For some reason I was escorted out. There really ISN'T
enough water, yet golf courses and parks are kept green all summer.
I also walked into Española Mayor Richard Lucero's feed store and
suggested he pass a law making it legal for anyone and everyone to
loot the new Wal-Mart.
In Gallup, on Navajo Radio, I told everyone that all the Anglos should
be forced off the reservation, and that FBI agents were likely to be
tasty and nutritious, and should be fed to hungry Navajo children. My
host (on Black Mesa) later talked me into apologizing, but frankly I
could not think of why.
For some reason, some people think I'm "odd," though I try very hard to
ask myself first "What Would Ed Do?"
Hillerman's first book, with Leaphorn as a Navajo Superman, was fun in
an absurd sort of way. Now that you mention it, I agree with you about
the series getting repetative: he's started to plagerize himself.
There's a book series about a Navajo vampire I was considering looking
over.
Desertphile
Ross Langerak wrote:
> "hamilton" <kwando...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1163724040.9...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Desertphile wrote:
> > > Yeah, I know it's off-topic. You lot who wonder how fucked up the USA
> > > has become will get an education by viewing the viedo at
> > >
> http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/11/16/ucla-student-tasered-in-library/
> > >
> > > It was so brutal and abusive that I could not watch it all.
> > >
> > I couldn't watch it either. I will try to watch what happens next in
> > the papers and such, though. Can you walk after being tasered?
> Yes. As a general rule, police officers go through the experience of being
> tasered before they are allowed to use tasers. It usually puts a suspect
> down long enough to cuff them. If the suspect wouldn't stand up, it was
> because he wanted to make a scene.
"Suspect?" What "suspect?"
sharon
Inez wrote:
> Occidental wrote:
> > Attorney Stephen Yagman said he plans to file a federal civil rights
> > lawsuit accusing the UCLA police of "brutal excessive force," as well
> > as false arrest stemming from the Tuesday night incident at a campus
> > library.
> > Tabatabainejad screaming while on the floor of the computer lab. It was
> > the third incident in a month in which police behavior in the city was
> > criticized after amateur video surfaced. The other two involved the Los
> > Angeles Police Department.
> He sounds like a jerk, but it really isn't the police's duty to inflict
> manners on people.
police is LA have a record of bad manners.
sharon
Desertphile wrote:
> hamilton wrote:
> > I couldn't watch it either. I will try to watch what happens next in
> > the papers and such, though. Can you walk after being tasered?
>
> Just this morning two people told me, in my face, that the student
> tasered deserved it because he did not produce ID when ordered to do
> so.
>
> There are several different types of tasers: the big ones render a
> person incapable of walking, or even crawling--- it knocks a person
> unconscious. The small ones, which some damn fools sell to women, are
> very painful but do not incapactitate.
Record on Rodney King and use of taser.
"...more remarkably--managed to rise to his feet after being hit twice
by an electric stun gun called a Taser. "
remarkable? which type of taser was used in King's beating and arrest?
"King's bizarre behavior and his "spaced-out" look led Koon to suspect
that King was "dusted"--a user of the drug most feared by police
departments, PCP. Police believed that the drug made individuals
impervious to pain and gave them almost superhuman strength. King's
"buffed out" look added to his apprehensions. He concluded that King
was probably an ex-con who developed his muscles working out on prison
weights. (Although Koon's suspicions about the PCP would later prove
unfounded, he was right about King being an ex-con. Earlier that
winter, King had been paroled after serving time for robbing a
convenience store and assaulting the clerk.) Koon grew even more
concerned after King successfully repelled a swarming maneuver by his
officers and--more remarkably--managed to rise to his feet after being
hit twice by an electric stun gun called a Taser. "
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/lapd/lapdaccount.html
Mark VandeWettering
Well, one thing we do know: the kid didn't taser anyone who was handcuffed,
and he didn't threaten to taser others who asked for his identity.
> Policemen serve a needed function, and their jobs are very dangerous.
The student was handcuffed. What threat do you honestly think the student
presented to the officer? Police officers would probably be safer if they
routinely tasered everyone they met just to be safe, but most people
think that's a bit extreme.
> A bit of advice, loon, if a policeman tells you to do something, just do
> it without fight. That includes no yelling or cussing, no telling
> police not to do something, no pulling away. If you want to "peacefully
> sit in", don't resist efforts of the police to pick you up and move
> you. The amount of pain you *will* experience if you do not, will be up
> to you. And if you think there is a possibility of abuse, I suggest you
> be even more careful in how you act and talk. If you don't, policemen
> have no other recourse than to think that the potential of their safety
> and that of the public's being compromised becomes greater. Perhaps a
> curious person such as yourself would understand this: if you think the
> bad policeman might hurt you, don't fuck with him or her. Don't break
> laws, don't endanger other's lives, and make the world a better place,
> instead of being one of it's problems. Especially in the world we live
> in today. Cooperate. Put another flower in your hair and moon a goat.
> Then you might help the world. You certainly won't by talking shit
> about compassion and the "manly" bugger man.
Mark
Occidental
> > Lawyer: Student hit by Taser thought officer was racial profiling
> >
> > Friday, November 17, 2006 05 14 AM
> >
> > (11-17) 05:14 PST Los Angeles (AP) --
> >
> > A student shocked with a Taser gun by a campus police officer after
> > refusing requests to show his ID card thought he was being singled out
> > because of his Middle Eastern appearance, his lawyer said.
> He sounds like a jerk, but it really isn't the police's duty to inflict
> manners on people.
The issue is compliance, not manners; when the police require you to do
something, you can comply while being rude, or refuse while being
polite.
Glenn
LA police have a record of getting hurt and killed, not only by the
perp, but sometimes from bystanders. Sure there are occasions of abuse.
There always have, and always will be.
The police are the *authority* in a situation, and unwanted involvement
by others can not be tolerated, especially in a situation where a perp
offers resistance. Sure it doesn't look good on tape. No violent act
looks good. But policeman have no clear cut guideline to follow in
these instances, since most anything can happen, and every situation is
different. And they don't think that if a perp resists arrest that they
should wait and call his mother. The campus police probably didn't know
this guy from Adam, and I would not have expected them to assume
anything about the student, if in fact he even is one. If you pull away
from an officer escorting you out of the building, and you pull back,
yell and cuss and tell the police not to touch you, you should know you
will be tasered. And when you continue to resist you will likely be
tasered some more to gain compliance. Had the police wrestled the punk
to the floor and handcuffed him, these bleeding hearts would probably
be whining the same as they are now. Especially if the idiot banged his
head on something while resisting, or got punched (which is standard
procedure in many cases). When you get close to an individual (it
doesn't matter how many police are involved) the greater the risk to
the officer. Cops have been shot because an arm got loose and grabbed a
gun and in an instant a life is gone. I doubt that was an issue, but it
may have been. In any event, the point is that police can not assume
that anyone is not dangerous. They can't afford to assume that anyone
isn't potentially capable of causing serious injury or death. All I see
is knee jerking bleeding heart liberals screaming "nice student, bad
cops". The claim that the cops didn't have to use that much force makes
me want to tell them to spend some time in the cop's shoes.
Or find out what happens when you fuck with cops who are apt to really
be abusive.
Glenn
No. You can do what the officer tells you without resistance, or not
comply without resistance. Cops must gauge the potential for violence,
and if you are being rude, you are not complying. Cops must then decide
what they think the potential is that you may suddenly not comply, and
if they think that, they might take extra measures to ensure you don't.
You can "refuse" and be polite, as long as you offer no resistance
whatsoever. I wouldn't want to take that chance, it is still breaking
the law, and cops can still take your "refusal" to be a sign of
potential violent behavior. I'd think that there was something wrong in
your head, and wouldn't trust you behind my back. If there are
bystanders around acting foolish, all the more reason to be wary of
you. You can not *refuse*, you can only *not* comply.
Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t
> Yeah, I know it's off-topic. ...
I already saw the story on the news on TV. If I wanted to pursue
the matter further, I could have done a Google search to find an
appropriate newsgroup where the event was being discussed. Perhaps
you should have done that, instead of posting here. If you're too
lazy to do a Google search, then post to misc.misc instead of here.
I can understand posting slightly off-topic articles here, if the
topic of the article is related to the topic of this newsgroup in
some way such that many people browsing this newsgroup would likely
be interested in the other topic too. But this particular topic has
no obvious tie-in to origins of life or species or the Universe, so
I think you did wrong to post here.
Now if you ever find a case where a student is tortured for reading
Darwin during Sunday School, or reading the Bible during biology
class, or where a student was tortured because he was caught
mutilating library books about religion to mention evolution or
vice versa, maybe that would be slightly appropriate here.
Cirbryn
> You can not *refuse*, you can only *not* comply.
You can refuse any unlawful order, from the cops or anyone else. If
you're walking on the street and a cop detains you and asks for ID
without cause, you can legally refuse. (Practically, you'd be taking a
big chance that the cop couldn't convince the judge she detained you
based on some reasonable suspicion of unlawful activity. See
http://www.safarix.com/0131102729/ch03.)
In this case, the student's legal right to refuse would revolve around
the reasons underlying why he was asked to show ID and to leave the
building. Assuming he lacked the right to refuse, the next question
would be weather the cops used unnecessary force. Considering that the
student began to leave and was subsequently tasered at least 4 times,
at least once while he was already in handcuffs, I'd call that a
probable yes.
Cops don't get to tell you to do whatever they want, and they don't get
to do whatever they want to you if you refuse. It amazes me that there
are people in America - rightwingers who typically complain about
government being too large, no less - who think they should.
Glenn
Cirbryn wrote:
> Glenn wrote:
>
> > You can not *refuse*, you can only *not* comply.
>
> You can refuse any unlawful order, from the cops or anyone else. If
> you're walking on the street and a cop detains you and asks for ID
> without cause, you can legally refuse. (Practically, you'd be taking a
> big chance that the cop couldn't convince the judge she detained you
> based on some reasonable suspicion of unlawful activity. See
> http://www.safarix.com/0131102729/ch03.)
Now how do you suppose you can know if the cop has no cause? You'd
*have* to *know* that. And what kind of reference is that??
>
> In this case, the student's legal right to refuse would revolve around
> the reasons underlying why he was asked to show ID and to leave the
> building. Assuming he lacked the right to refuse, the next question
> would be weather the cops used unnecessary force. Considering that the
> student began to leave and was subsequently tasered at least 4 times,
> at least once while he was already in handcuffs, I'd call that a
> probable yes.
Cops do not have to give you a reason for anything, dude. But the
campus cops certainly do not need a reason to spot check IDs. He simply
has *no* right to refuse, since he was in a building that required ID.
Why, if he had an ID, he might have thought that simply producing the
ID would have gotten him into trouble is beyond me. Maybe he resisted
because he thought he was being discriminated against. Well, he was,
but by himself. He could not have known that the cops were
intentionally discriminating against him. If that were assumed, people
of middle eastern descent simply would have immunity. Now that's a
thought.
If the student began to leave and was just tasered as he went along his
way out of the room as you are wont to portray, then the police would
be in the wrong. I suspect you are full of shit, though. And if he was
tasered after being handcuffed is not in itself enough reason to
determine that unneccesary force was used. People can hurt, kill,
escape, push buttons, throw things, all kinds of acts, while
handcuffed, dude. If he was handcuffed and resisted efforts to move him
out of the room, the increased use of force could easily be justified.
You don't get to just do what you want, dude.
>
> Cops don't get to tell you to do whatever they want, and they don't get
> to do whatever they want to you if you refuse. It amazes me that there
> are people in America - rightwingers who typically complain about
> government being too large, no less - who think they should.
No, cops don't usually get away with telling you to do "whatever they
want", but they certainly have the authority to tell you to do whatever
*they* see is justified, and to use force if you refuse. *You* don't
get to decide what is "legal" and what is not. Good grief. You sound
like some drug crazed hippie from the 60s. And heeding your counsel
could prove disasterous for those who think you have some correct sense
about this. These things are settled after the fact, not during. And if
you do "refuse", you'd better have a damn good reason and be able to
prove it.
chris.li...@gmail.com
Remember RoadRunner? That smarmy Nazi Holocaust-denier? Remember how
Glenn went after that son of a bitch? It's disappointing to see he
doesn't realize how the facism starts.
Maybe _Glenn_ needs someone to stand over him, screaming and
threatening to taze him _again_ if he doesn't stand up. Did you hear
that poor dude screaming "I can't! I can't!"
As far as common sense, it's the government version of a parent yelling
at a kid, "I'll give you something to cry about!"
Chris
chris.li...@gmail.com
Your whole point is meaningless since these are not LAPD, they're
campus security.
If the guy was that threatening, they should have called LAPD, who
supposedly are better trained and equipped to handle it.
Chris
chris.li...@gmail.com
Having posted seriously off-topic rants here before, I can say that
sometimes something so...outrageous, egregious, amazing, out of the
ordinary... happens that you want to bring it to everyone's attention.
I personally don't know the people on alt.police.excessive-force, and I
wouldn't go there to read the followups anyway. I "know" a lot of
people here, and I know whose opionions and insights I value. And I bet
that's why DP posted it here.
Chris
Glenn
http://www.ucpd.ucla.edu/
>
> If the guy was that threatening, they should have called LAPD, who
> supposedly are better trained and equipped to handle it.
>
sharon
Glenn wrote:
> > Your whole point is meaningless since these are not LAPD, they're
> > campus security.
> I read it as the UCLA police, not the campus security.
> http://www.ucpd.ucla.edu/
Law enforcement is law enforcement. though college security is only
different in that they have jurisdiction in the college, like military
have their own jurisdiction, just as the city, county, state and
federal have separate jurisdiction. Some employed with UCLA campus
security may have been with the LAPD or other department/s, before UCLA
hired them. Usually every state has certification program, from there,
you obtain certification for employment in any law enforcement agency
within the state. (At least that's how it works in NC).
They are under the same regulations as other officers working in
California. Such as refraining from using "excessive force".
"It was the most disgusting and vile act I had ever seen in my life,"
said David Remesnitsky, a 2006 UCLA alumnus who witnessed the incident.
I am certain the majority of legitimate law enforcement across the
country agree, and that should come out one way or another, if the case
goes to court over this incident.
I'm interested to find out what happens, and glad Desertphile posted
the news item.
Glenn
approach to journalism. Other bleeding heart liberals followed suit,
expressing various displays of ignorance and disrespect of the law,
generally making asses of themselves.
It appears that the taser was one with stun capacity, that localizes a
current and does not disable, and the punk was stunned (body contact),
which hurts like hell but doesn't significantly affect muscle control.
It seems that the police *officers* determined the force used was
necessary in the situation. Looked like a mob forming to me, an
unorganized one. Individuals looked like they were gathering courage
and coming closer. An unorganized mob is not a good thing, an organized
one is worse. It has no brain, only reaction to emotion. There was
simply no way the police could have predicted what may have happened
had they not gotten the perp out as soon as possible. Drag him out by
his feet? Just hang around till he decides he wants to leave? The
police have more important things to do than to hang around till things
get better, and there is no guarantee that things would have, in any
event. Multiple injuries could easily have occured. One guy slugs
another, a cop gets knocked down by accident, any number of things
could have happened. Police are largely responsible for what happens,
Sharon. They got more to think about than playing to the politics of
spoiled punk kids that think they know it all.
Tom McDonald
chris.li...@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
> Your whole point is meaningless since these are not LAPD, they're
> campus security.
>
> If the guy was that threatening, they should have called LAPD, who
> supposedly are better trained and equipped to handle it.
Back in the day (late '60's, early 70's), I was in Madison. There were
at times four different organizations involved in law enforcement and
crowd control: the UW campus cops, the Madison city police, the Dane
County sheriff's department and the National Guard.
It was a commonplace that the least professional and the most
aggressive of these were the campus cops, probably because of having to
deal with snot-nosed smartasses every day of the year.
Interestingly, the second most confrontational and aggressive was the
sheriff's department. They got tired of having their patrol cars tipped
over and burned, so they stripped all the glass out of mid-1950's
Chevys, covered the openings with chain link fencings, and putting
big-ass bumpers on the front and rear. It was sort of elegant--those
cars were tanks anyway, and upending them was hernia-making business.
Besides, of course, they were very cheap and easily replaced at the
time.
I never got why the sheriff's department was so crude and angry.
Perhaps it was that the sheriff is an elected position, and the
conservative base that elected him wanted no molly-coddling of commies.
The least nasty were the National Guard. They had the most and most
powerful weapons (M1 Garands, often with fixed bayonets), but they were
mostly kids our own age who had joined up to lower their odds of being
sent to Viet Nam.
So it isn't too surprising to me that the campus cops at UCLA went so
badly over the top.
I only hope that UCLA, and Madison, begin to remember what it means to
be American universities in a time of social and political danger. I
weep when I see what UW-Mad has become.
Mujin
GlennS...@msn.com says...
[snip]
>
> Cops do not have to give you a reason for anything, dude.
[snip]
Just as a matter of interest, what country do you live in again?
AFAIK in Canada and the US police officers have very clear rules of
engagement which determine when they can use force, and when they
can use lethal force. They can be disciplined for *unholstering*
weapons (firearms, tasers, clubs) without proper cause. Perhaps
this isn't the case in all parts of the US, but it's certainly the
case in Canada. I was under the impression that all large PDs in
the US subscribed to this policy as well.
In any case, it's clear from what you have written in this thread
that you haven't actually read any of the newspaper articles which
have come out since the incident. Let me summarize for you:
1. student is using computer facilities at university
2. security patrol asks him to produce ID. No mention of whether
other students were asked, but it's apparently policy to ask for ID
after 11pm.
3. student feels they're only targetting him because he appears
middle-eastern (this implies that others near him weren't asked),
and declines.
4. security patrol asks him to leave. He initially refuses.
5. security patrol leaves to get UCPD
6. student decides to leave.
7. as he is leaving, UCPD arrive to escort him out.
8. UCPD attempt to grab his arm.
9. He pulls away, says he's leaving
10. they grab at him again, and he shouts "get off me"
11. a scuffle ensues in which the student is ultimately tasered four
times, at least once *after* he has been handcuffed.
12. a shocked student witnessing the altercation demands one of the
UCPD officer's badge number and is threatened with his taser
This is a summary of what I have seen in newspaper articles quoting
a) the student who was tasered, b) other students who witnessed the
event, c) the tasered student's lawyer, and d) university officials
giving official comment to the press.
Personally, I'm skeptical of the student's claim that he was being
racially profiled, and I think his behaviour prior to being tasered
was obnoxious, but there is no sign that he was violent prior to
when things turned ugly in the video (which admittedly doesn't show
much) or in eyewitness reports. Even the official university
statement indicates he *passively* resisted while officers
apparently tried to use force in getting him to do something he was
already doing.
Glenn
Mujin wrote:
> In article <1163807203....@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> GlennS...@msn.com says...
> [snip]
>
> >
> > Cops do not have to give you a reason for anything, dude.
>
> [snip]
>
> Just as a matter of interest, what country do you live in again?
>
> AFAIK in Canada and the US police officers have very clear rules of
> engagement which determine when they can use force, and when they
> can use lethal force. They can be disciplined for *unholstering*
> weapons (firearms, tasers, clubs) without proper cause. Perhaps
> this isn't the case in all parts of the US, but it's certainly the
> case in Canada. I was under the impression that all large PDs in
> the US subscribed to this policy as well.
Just as a matter of interest, what planet are you from?
Why do you think that because there are police requirements, that
somehow counters my claim that cops do not have to give a perp or a mob
a reason for their behavior?
>
> In any case, it's clear from what you have written in this thread
> that you haven't actually read any of the newspaper articles which
> have come out since the incident. Let me summarize for you:
Nah. I'll let the official inquiry talk, not the news or the idiots who
might have been there complaining.
Well I'm not holding my breath on any of this. I watched the video, and
that's all I've got to go on right now, as unreliable as videos can be.
But I heard "let me go" and several times "stand up". And I saw and
heard bystanders reacting negatively. From that, it's bullshit to say
that he was passively resisting, and that that was all there was to it.
It just doesn't look like he was "already doing" what you claim. And
there is little doubt that there was some period of time between when
the campus cops called the police, when he could have just scooted
right out of there, had he not wished a confrontation.
Do you believe everything you read in the news, on your planet?
Glenn
Mujin
GlennS...@msn.com says...
From http://www.ucpd.ucla.edu/ucpd/about_mission.html
"Police officers of the UCLA Police Department are duly sworn peace
officers under section 830.2(b) of the California Penal Code. The
officers of the department are armed and possess the same authority
under the law as municipal police officers. "
chris.li...@gmail.com
> http://www.ronie-mooney-encs.us/salute.html
> Both Navy and Army honor guard. Many kind words have been sent from his
> minesweeper buddies. He was well loved and respected.
You're lucky.
My dad- a doctor for the VA- spent 20 years helping survivors of the
Bataan Death March come to grips with their post-traumatic stress
syndrome. I asked him about his work at times, and he never, ever said
a word about that, despite him knowing about my interest in WWII
history. He's dead now, and I'm so proud of him for that, and so
resentful that I couldn't tell him how proud I was of him when he was
alive.
Chris
>
> Law enforcement like the ones at UCLA bring shame on all decent law
> enforcement and military officers, like my Dad, who were good honest
> men who served to protect their country.
Glenn
seemingly respectable members of society such as teachers, think that
cops should always take time out of their lax schedules to provide
people with their badge numbers, on demand. And run around like a mad
dog mob not relying on logic and evidence, whining about losing civil
liberties whenever they see anything that upsets them. That's truly
disgusting.
sharon
Glenn wrote:
> >
> > Your whole point is meaningless since these are not LAPD, they're
> > campus security.
> >
> > If the guy was that threatening, they should have called LAPD, who
> > supposedly are better trained and equipped to handle it.
http://www.lapdonline.org/
Los Angeles City Police Department
Los Angeles County Sheriff Department
http://www.lasd.org/
Here, they would call assistance from county, not city police. Do
california operate differently?
Anyway, found this video news report from CBS Los Angeles. They seem to
feel excessive force was used, but the student was not hurt. Count
hearing pending.
cbs2.com - Campus Police Use Stun Gun On UCLA StudentTabatabainejad was
given a citation for obstruction/delay of a peace officer in the
performance of duty and released from custody, the sergeant said. ...
http://cbs2.com/local/local_story_319101652.html
Free Lunch
"Glenn" <GlennS...@msn.com> wrote in
<1163816582....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
>
>chris.li...@gmail.com wrote:
...
>> Remember RoadRunner? That smarmy Nazi Holocaust-denier? Remember how
>> Glenn went after that son of a bitch? It's disappointing to see he
>> doesn't realize how the facism starts.
>>
>> Maybe _Glenn_ needs someone to stand over him, screaming and
>> threatening to taze him _again_ if he doesn't stand up. Did you hear
>> that poor dude screaming "I can't! I can't!"
>>
>> As far as common sense, it's the government version of a parent yelling
>> at a kid, "I'll give you something to cry about!"
>>
>Nah, it's your idiocy talking. What is dissapointing is that even
>seemingly respectable members of society such as teachers, think that
>cops should always take time out of their lax schedules to provide
>people with their badge numbers, on demand. And run around like a mad
>dog mob not relying on logic and evidence, whining about losing civil
>liberties whenever they see anything that upsets them. That's truly
>disgusting.
Thanks for letting us know how committed you are to authoritarianism.
Shall we check to see if you support totalitarianism as well?
Glenn
sharon wrote:
> Glenn wrote:
> > >
> > > Your whole point is meaningless since these are not LAPD, they're
> > > campus security.
> > >
> > > If the guy was that threatening, they should have called LAPD, who
> > > supposedly are better trained and equipped to handle it.
>
> http://www.lapdonline.org/
> Los Angeles City Police Department
>
> Los Angeles County Sheriff Department
> http://www.lasd.org/
>
> Here, they would call assistance from county, not city police. Do
> california operate differently?
I would imagine that UCLA lies within the city of Los Angeles. You may
live in a county and not within the city limits.
>
> Anyway, found this video news report from CBS Los Angeles. They seem to
> feel excessive force was used, but the student was not hurt. Count
> hearing pending.
I didn't read anything from your link below about feeling that
excessive force was used.
The student has a court hearing pending, I'm sure.
But any act involving violence is investigated by the police, and that
is also happening.
Glenn
Oh quit your liberal whining. There is a time to change things, and a
time for justice to be served. It isn't with snot nosed punks thinking
they can get away with civil disobedience.
sharon
Glenn wrote:
> sharon wrote:
> > Anyway, found this video news report from CBS Los Angeles. They seem to
> > feel excessive force was used, but the student was not hurt. Count
> > hearing pending.
I simply summarized the news item.
>
> I didn't read anything from your link below about feeling that
> excessive force was used.
The student who spoke to the reporter, "tazer use was unnecessary... he
said he had a medical condition and whether or not he had a medical
condition... they lifted up his shirt and tazered him..."
John Wilkins
That's what the YouTube video shows too, although the student did tell
one of the officers to "Fuck off!" at one point. But that doesn't
justify the actions taken.
>
> Personally, I'm skeptical of the student's claim that he was being
> racially profiled, and I think his behaviour prior to being tasered
> was obnoxious, but there is no sign that he was violent prior to
> when things turned ugly in the video (which admittedly doesn't show
> much) or in eyewitness reports. Even the official university
> statement indicates he *passively* resisted while officers
> apparently tried to use force in getting him to do something he was
> already doing.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
sharon
Sending that many officers in to swarm an unarmed student that was in
the process of leaving the building anyway, was in itself unnecessary.
The guy was leaving the library. Right? They got him at the door as he
was leaving.. It's very clear he tells the officers (quite reasonably)
"I'll leave." if I heard right, he said this emphatically at least a
couple times.. but the officers had swarmed him.. then proceed to do
what they did with their tazer. Of course he reacted less than
congenial. I might would have to if I'd been in the same situation.
Anyone who says the guy was behaving irrationally under the
circumstances hasn't ever experienced what its like to have four, five
or six law enforcement officers surrounding them maybe.
Community service officers who called in campus security, at least two
officers dragging the boy out of the library and how many, 2, 3, 4 or 5
(I can't tell) police standing behind speaking to students? That seems
to be over-doing it.
Mujin
GlennS...@msn.com says...
>
> Mujin wrote:
> > In article <1163807203....@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> > GlennS...@msn.com says...
> > [snip]
> >
> > >
> > > Cops do not have to give you a reason for anything, dude.
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > Just as a matter of interest, what country do you live in again?
> >
> > AFAIK in Canada and the US police officers have very clear rules of
> > engagement which determine when they can use force, and when they
> > can use lethal force. They can be disciplined for *unholstering*
> > weapons (firearms, tasers, clubs) without proper cause. Perhaps
> > this isn't the case in all parts of the US, but it's certainly the
> > case in Canada. I was under the impression that all large PDs in
> > the US subscribed to this policy as well.
>
> Just as a matter of interest, what planet are you from?
I'm from Earth. Clearly you and I don't live on the same Earth,
though:
> Why do you think that because there are police requirements, that
> somehow counters my claim that cops do not have to give a perp or a mob
> a reason for their behavior?
Wolf v Colorado 338 U.S.25(1949) - security against *arbitrary*
intrusion by the police is implicit in the concept of ordered
liberty as expressed in the 4th ammendment. The "knock and
announce" principle which restricts police officers by requiring
that they *must* announce their presence and *prove* their authority
if challenged - i.e. present their identification when requested.
This principle has been part of common law since the 13th Century.
Further, California Penal Code 841 requires that peace officers
announce their intention to act, their reason for acting *and
demonstrate their authority to act* unless they're interrupting a
criminal act or otherwise have reason to believe it would be
dangerous to do so.
Cunningham v Williams/Gates Case#98-55108 US Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit
"Under the Fourth Amendment, police may use only such force as is
objectively reasonable under the circumstances"
Under what circumstances is it reasonable for two police officers to
use a taser on an unarmed individual who has not initiated violence?
According to California Penal Code 240-242 it is lawful for a person
who is being assaulted to defend himself/herself from attack, if, as
a reasonable person s/he has grounds for believing and does believe
that bodily injury is about to be inflicted upon him/her. In doing
so, that person must use all force and means which s/he believes to
be reasonably necessary and which would appear to a reasonable
person, in the same or similar circumstances, to be necessary to
prevent the injury which appears to be imminent. (paraphrase)
Lest we think these rules are peculiar to California, Georgia Codes
of Law 16-3-21 and 16-3-23 allow police officers to use *one* level
of force higher than that initiated by the individual they are
engaged with. iow, they can display their firearm, and declare that
they are armed and may use the weapon if a criminal is threatening
them with a bat (weapon), but not if he is threatening them with his
fists.
Alabama 13-1-3-23
Alaska AS 11.81.330
Arkasas 5-2-605
Arizona 13-411
etc
In pretty much every case, the only real difference between the
right of the police to use force and the rights of citizens to use
force is that the police are not obligated to retreat if they can do
so safely.
> >
> > In any case, it's clear from what you have written in this thread
> > that you haven't actually read any of the newspaper articles which
> > have come out since the incident. Let me summarize for you:
>
> Nah. I'll let the official inquiry talk, not the news or the idiots who
> might have been there complaining.
You do that. In the mean time we're discussing what information
*is* available, which seems to be mostly limited to the word of
eye-witnesses. If you're unwilling to discuss the event without the
results of the official enquiry, why are you bothering to post?
The complainant's story is that they took hold of him while he was
leaving - as requested. Contrary to your opinion, the police don't
actually have the power to lay hands on you unless they're actively
preventing you from doing something illegal/dangerous or taking you
into custody.
> And I saw and
> heard bystanders reacting negatively.
The fact that people were reacting negatively is a clue that
bystanders felt that an unreasonable level of force was being used.
Since the law uses the "reasonable man" standard to determine
whether or not force was excessive, unless there's more to the story
than we have been told it's likely the officers will be disciplined.
> From that, it's bullshit to say
> that he was passively resisting, and that that was all there was to it.
As I said, some of the things I wrote above came from other sources
such as newspaper articles quoting bystanders or the complainant
himself.
> It just doesn't look like he was "already doing" what you claim.
*I* don't claim it, eyewitnesses do. I have no idea what actually
happened, but if the witness reports are accurate it seems to me the
police over-reacted.
> And
> there is little doubt that there was some period of time between when
> the campus cops called the police, when he could have just scooted
> right out of there, had he not wished a confrontation.
"Some period of time" also includes short enough periods of time
that he might not have been able to save his work and "scoot right
out of there" in time to be gone by the time UCPD arrived. We don't
know how much time elapsed, but we do "know" (from witnesses) that
the guy was no longer at his computer when police arrived. Clearly
he was going *somewhere*
>
> Do you believe everything you read in the news, on your planet?
Moron.
sharon
> Community service officers who called in campus security, at least two
> officers dragging the boy out of the library and how many, 2, 3, 4 or 5
> (I can't tell) police standing behind speaking to students? That seems
> to be over-doing it.
Glenn wrote: "Police are largely responsible for what happens, Sharon."
Sharon: They are. I guess that's my point. 5 or 6 or 7 officers /
campus security, give or take and this is how they handle the matter? I
would suspect none of them are professionally trained in hostage
negotiations. It's imperative those guys know how to calm the
situation, not make it worse.
Harry K
On the fence here in the instant case. However, to resist what one
believes is an unreasonable request by authority is not the way to go.
The proper method is to comply and then make a complaint to the higher
ups. That gets results. Resisting gets your name in the news and gets
you hurt.
>From what I could see in the video, the cops where way overboard.
Still doesn't change the fact that the kid brought it on himself by not
complying with a lawful order at the start.
Harry K
Glenn
Well now, nobody got hurt either. Forget that?
sharon
All I am saying is that when the Chief of Campus police / fellow
officers arrived, the Chief says they 'didn't know who the guy was, he
wouldn't identify, and they were just trying to get him out of the
library for the safety of the other students'. (Los Angeles CBS News
clip).
Seems he'd have wanted to find out. That's done by quieting the
situation and asking questions in a calm tone of voice. It's not like
they were overpowered by this unarmed student. Right after 9/11, there
were some men of middle eastern origin driving a guess what? You got
it, a U-Haul truck -- and our Chief of Police, (call it racial
profiling if you want) but our police asked to inspect the contents of
their U-Haul, reasonably no doubt, and the guys cooperated. They told
the press they understood the position of the police, under the
circumstances. Nobody got beat up, both sides resolved without
conflict. There are better ways to handle a situation, and the campus
police did not do a very good job of it in UCLA.
Maybe if the police had tried to talk to him, instead of manhandling
and tazering him, this situation would have been avoided altogether? I
think the officers were being slightly over-aggressive and a bit
unreasonable, don't you? The boy was unarmed, and was leaving the
building when they approached him. What's the student suppose to feel
like at that point?
Neither party seems to have been attempting to be reasonable (both
sides, I'm not denying that, the student would have done better not to
scream at the officers like he did initially), but it was as you said,
"Police are largely responsible for what happens."
sharon
chris.li...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> You're lucky.
>
> My dad- a doctor for the VA- spent 20 years helping survivors of the
> Bataan Death March come to grips with their post-traumatic stress
> syndrome. I asked him about his work at times, and he never, ever said
> a word about that, despite him knowing about my interest in WWII
> history. He's dead now, and I'm so proud of him for that, and so
> resentful that I couldn't tell him how proud I was of him when he was
> alive.
>
> Chris
>
"I asked him about his work at times, and he never, ever said a word
about that, despite him knowing about my interest in WWII history."
Sounds just like my father. He never discussed much about his service
or the Korean war with me, but kept up with some of his navy buddies by
ham radio, and then later got online with old shipmates. After he
passed away, was when I began tracking his activity (salvaging what I
could), and reading the things he wrote, the old photos he shared with
his minesweeper buddies, learning things I never knew about him. His
buddies began sending me his emails, or posts he made. I'm left asking,
why I didn't tell him how proud I was while he was alive (yeah, I felt
like you describe), but its not my fault, being an introvert, he never
really let me in on his life. I sure miss him.
Glenn
Your thinking is not unreasonable or unreasoned. I believe there is
always room for improvement in how things are done. But it's not always
easy to accomplish. And you may be making some assumptions that the
police did not or could not afford, such as whether the boy was
unarmed. Until a person is apprehended and searched, you simply can not
take the chance. Should the police have assumed that a good old boy
student wouldn't have had a weapon of some sort? Should the police have
said let's sit down and discuss this? Under what circumstances do we
instruct police when to discuss instead of taking action?
How many of these questions do you think could run through a
policeman's mind in the split second it takes for something to go
wrong, if they are not in positive control of a situation?
sharon
Glenn wrote:
> Your thinking is not unreasonable or unreasoned. I believe there is
> always room for improvement in how things are done. But it's not always
> easy to accomplish. And you may be making some assumptions that the
> police did not or could not afford, such as whether the boy was
> unarmed. Until a person is apprehended and searched, you simply can not
> take the chance. Should the police have assumed that a good old boy
> student wouldn't have had a weapon of some sort? Should the police have
> said let's sit down and discuss this? Under what circumstances do we
> instruct police when to discuss instead of taking action?
> How many of these questions do you think could run through a
> policeman's mind in the split second it takes for something to go
> wrong, if they are not in positive control of a situation?
I think you're touching into the real problem. Lack of training.
~ "if they are not in positive control of a situation?"
If my recollection is correct, one of the female students questioned
one of the officers and he threatened her with use of the tazer. (I
should recheck the article to be certain). If I'm recollecting
correctly, I heard a male voice of another student, ask one of the
officers for badge # . . .
The campus police were really not in control of the situation. That's
the difference professional training and experience make.
sharon
If the Los Angeles County Sheriff Dept. had been the officers in charge
of this particular situation, I suspect things would have turned out
quite different. Including the reaction from the students who were
by-standers, and their questioning the behavior of the officers.
There is a difference between law enforcement controlling a situation,
and allowing a situation to control law enforcement. The students were
smart enough to know that and were right to question the officers'
judgment (including the kid they were singling out).
working in college campus setting around kids, is very different from
what goes on daily in the lives of Sheriff dept. or even LAPD,
(experience). To say the job of a campus security officer is dangerous,
is exaggerating. The LAPD and Sheriff however, do have dangerous jobs,
and would naturally be more experienced in distinguishing a truly
dangerous, "life threatening" situation from simple disruptive
behavior. The campus police lacked the experience necessary in
determining the appropriate amount of force, necessary in the situation.
Glenn
sharon wrote:
> > > Your thinking is not unreasonable or unreasoned. I believe there is
> > > always room for improvement in how things are done. But it's not always
> > > easy to accomplish. And you may be making some assumptions that the
> > > police did not or could not afford, such as whether the boy was
> > > unarmed. Until a person is apprehended and searched, you simply can not
> > > take the chance. Should the police have assumed that a good old boy
> > > student wouldn't have had a weapon of some sort? Should the police have
> > > said let's sit down and discuss this? Under what circumstances do we
> > > instruct police when to discuss instead of taking action?
> > > How many of these questions do you think could run through a
> > > policeman's mind in the split second it takes for something to go
> > > wrong, if they are not in positive control of a situation?
> >
> > I think you're touching into the real problem. Lack of training.
> >
> > ~ "if they are not in positive control of a situation?"
> >
> > If my recollection is correct, one of the female students questioned
> > one of the officers and he threatened her with use of the tazer. (I
> > should recheck the article to be certain). If I'm recollecting
> > correctly, I heard a male voice of another student, ask one of the
> > officers for badge # . . .
> >
> > The campus police were really not in control of the situation. That's
> > the difference professional training and experience make.
"Threatening" isn't the right word, and implies a bias. Warning or
informing a bystander not to interfere is one way that the situation
was kept under control. There are times though in a situation where
bystanders take an active roll that can not be controlled with the
available manpower. This has nothing to do with professionalism or
experience in and of itself, however. You can't always make the perfect
call when going into a situation, and sometimes shit just happens.
>
> If the Los Angeles County Sheriff Dept. had been the officers in charge
> of this particular situation, I suspect things would have turned out
> quite different. Including the reaction from the students who were
> by-standers, and their questioning the behavior of the officers.
> There is a difference between law enforcement controlling a situation,
> and allowing a situation to control law enforcement. The students were
> smart enough to know that and were right to question the officers'
> judgment (including the kid they were singling out).
They did not "single out" the kid. And I've already explained to you
and others, and provided references, for what happened. The campus
security people made a spot ID check during a late night sweep, and the
kid refused to show his card. The *real* police were called, and
responded. They found the kid still there, after the campus security
guys told him to leave.
Sharon, the bystanders were in *no way* right to question officers
while in the performance of their duty. That can not be tolerated, and
you won't find one cop that would disagree. The cops *must* be the ones
to decide whether it is appropriate or that they have time for it, or
that there may be a reason for, choosing to inform bystanders of whats
going on. And no part of their job includes asking permission or
discussing with bystanders, what they should do.
>
> working in college campus setting around kids, is very different from
> what goes on daily in the lives of Sheriff dept. or even LAPD,
> (experience). To say the job of a campus security officer is dangerous,
> is exaggerating. The LAPD and Sheriff however, do have dangerous jobs,
> and would naturally be more experienced in distinguishing a truly
> dangerous, "life threatening" situation from simple disruptive
> behavior. The campus police lacked the experience necessary in
> determining the appropriate amount of force, necessary in the situation.
I'd imagine that the campus security people could find their job
dangerous at times, if nothing but for the fact that they can be in the
wrong place at the wrong time, such as walking a scared girl home who
thinks she is in danger. She just could be.
But the facts seem to be that the campus security people who originally
asked for the kids ID and was refused, asked him to leave, and he did
not. That's when they called the real police. I'd imagine that the LAPD
campus police would have the experience and training to handle what
they could imagine might happen.
sharon
Glenn wrote:
>
> They did not "single out" the kid. And I've already explained to you
> and others, and provided references, for what happened. The campus
> security people made a spot ID check during a late night sweep, and the
My understanding is (correct me if I'm wrong), he was already in the
process of leaving the library, when the campus police showed up, and
began hassling him.
Stuart
Inez wrote:
> Occidental wrote:
> > Desertphile wrote:
> > > Yeah, I know it's off-topic. You lot who wonder how fucked up the USA
> > > has become will get an education by viewing the viedo at
> > > http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/11/16/ucla-student-tasered-in-library/
> >
> >
> > Friday, November 17, 2006 05 14 AM
> >
> > (11-17) 05:14 PST Los Angeles (AP) --
> >
> > A student shocked with a Taser gun by a campus police officer after
> > refusing requests to show his ID card thought he was being singled out
> > because of his Middle Eastern appearance, his lawyer said.
> >
> > Attorney Stephen Yagman said he plans to file a federal civil rights
> > lawsuit accusing the UCLA police of "brutal excessive force," as well
> > as false arrest stemming from the Tuesday night incident at a campus
> > library.
> >
> > routine check of student IDs at the University of California, Los
> > Angeles Powell Library computer lab.
> >
> > Yagman said Tabatabainejad declined to produce his school ID because he
> > thought he was being targeted because of his appearance. The
> > 23-year-old senior is of Iranian descent but is a U.S.-born resident of
> > Los Angeles.
> >
> > Tabatabainejad eventually decided to leave the library but fell limp on
> > the floor when an officer escorting him out wouldn't take his hand off
> > him, Yagman said. Tabatabainejad didn't want to participate in what he
> > considered was a case of racial profiling, the lawyer said.
> >
> > The student started yelling and screaming after police started using
> > the Taser to gather attention and get the officer to stop, according to
> > Yagman.
> >
> > "Generally, police don't want to do their dirties in front of a lot of
> > witnesses," he said.
> >
> > But police have said Tabatabainejad encouraged others at the library to
> > join his resistance, and when a crowd began to gather, an officer used
> > the stun gun on him. They said it was long-standing policy to ask
> > students to show ID at libraries late at night to keep the campus safe.
> >
> > Tabatabainejad was arrested for resisting and obstructing a police
> > officer and later released on his own recognizance.
> >
> > The incident was recorded on another student's camera phone and showed
> > Tabatabainejad screaming while on the floor of the computer lab. It was
> > the third incident in a month in which police behavior in the city was
> > criticized after amateur video surfaced. The other two involved the Los
> > Angeles Police Department.
> >
> > judgment while the campus police department investigates.
> >
> > Student activists were planning a midday rally Friday to protest the
> > incident, and several civil rights organizations including Amnesty
> > International and the Council on American-Islamic Relations were
> > calling for an independent review.
> >
> > LA Times
>
> He sounds like a jerk, but it really isn't the police's duty to inflict
> manners on people
Really. This level of violence was unnecessary. A couple of swats with
a billy club would've done the trick.
Stuart
Glenn
reason to complain about tasering.
Glenn
In the process? Sharon, the reason the police were called by the campus
volunteers (CSO)that tried to ID him, was that he *didn't* leave when
they asked him. I don't think it is reasonable to suspect that he just
didn't have time to make it to the door until the police arrived after
being called on the radio. It looks like it couldn't have been much
further than a hundred feet or so. I can swagger that far in the time
it would take you to make a radio call.
And when the police got there, he resisted being removed. Holding a
*perp*s arm and attempting to guide him out is not "hassling".
Take a good look at this site, and explore all the links.
http://www.ucpd.ucla.edu/ucpd/zippdf/2006/Taser%2011-15-06.pdf
http://www.ucpd.ucla.edu/ucpd/clery.htm#ucpdla
http://www.ucpd.ucla.edu/ucpd/about_employ_policeofficer.html
http://www.ucpd.ucla.edu/ucpd/zippdf/2006/Taser_Policies.pdf
And if you don't think that even the campus security (CSO) job can be
dangerous, make sure you also look at these
http://www.ucpd.ucla.edu/ucpd/cso/index.htm
http://www.ucpd.ucla.edu/ucpd/zippdf/2006/stabbing_10_06.pdf
Glenn
Oh really. I guess if a police officer wants to pull you over for a
speeding ticket in AU, you can just roll down the window and tell him
to fuck off. Give it a go, guv.
sharon
Glenn wrote:
> Take a good look at this site, and explore all the links.
>
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/11/16/ucla-student-tasered-in-library/
I'll go with the original link. It tells everything. Too much force
used. Just a kid. Sheriff Dept would have handled this completely
different. I've watched too many COPS re-runs. What happened at UCLA is
just plain ridiculous.
Michael Siemon
"Glenn" <GlennS...@msn.com> wrote:
Nobody got hurt? You ever been tazered?
Glenn, your responses in this thread are making you look like a purblind
fool, with an insane "trust" in fallible (and often arrogant, stupid, and
malicious) "authorities" who have in fact far exceeded their warrant.
Cops are -- often -- responsible, effective officers of legitimate
social control. Sometimes they are responsible, but frustratingly
ineffective.
They are also -- often -- irresponsible pigs. Contemptuous of those
they are sworn to "protect".
That is _one_ reason they _must_ when challenged (in anything other
than dangerous circumstances, which this clearly wasn't) produce
evidence of their authority. And must follow rules of engagement that
are _intended_ to prevent abuse. Those rules exist _because_ abuses
exist. Cops are human -- some good, some bad, some simply off the
wall on a bad day. If police misbehavior is _not_ challenged, then
we are in a fair way towards a "police state" in which any cop can
do anything at all, with no redress. That way lies Nazi America.
sharon
Glenn wrote:
> >
> > That's what the YouTube video shows too, although the student did tell
> > one of the officers to "Fuck off!" at one point. But that doesn't
> > justify the actions taken.
>
> Oh really. I guess if a police officer wants to pull you over for a
> speeding ticket in AU, you can just roll down the window and tell him
> to fuck off. Give it a go, guv.
The kid wasn't speeding. The kid was studying and doing his work in the
library... just a student, right? He committed a minor infraction,
being in the library studying past 11:30 pm. I've seen COPS, with guys
burning rubber at 95 mph, car loaded with crack or marijuana and when
apprehended a couple officers are enough to apprehend and cuff a man
and put him in the vehicle, and sometimes to establish calm, reasonable
conversation with the suspect. These officers at UCLA couldn't even
communicate properly with a college kid who was sober.
>From the looks of things, UCLA security have a corncob wound up their
ass too tight, and when they told him to leave, I presume that wasn't
on nice terms either, if they even explained why he was being told to
leave (did the student know the policy? I've been wondering about
this.) And I know, it does take a few minutes at least to gather your
books, shut down what you're doing, save work on disk -- or what? But
I'm sure these guys weren't going to give this student that common
courtesy... he didn't leave "immediately"? Jesus.
he wasn't armed. he wasn't a threat to anyone in the library.
if the campus police were "trying to remove him for the safety of the
other students in the library", they did a fine job at making it
backfire. Everyone was upset, a student gets electrocuted and the thing
is national news now. Something went wrong, don't blame the boy, blame
the police. they controlled the situation, good or bad. It was all in
the hands of the law enforcement.
He was *only* a student, not a criminal, a college kid who made a
mistake, an error in judgment, the police are suppose to be there to
protect these kids, not beat them up. I'm sure the kid's feathers were
ruffled by the time he reached the exit manhandled along the way, and
then to have the campus police swarming him, and tazering him.
Just seems a simple explanation of policy and request to leave the
building would have sufficed. Campus security shouldn't treat kids like
hard-boiled criminals just because they're studying past 11:30 in a
library, they're_paying_tuition to be able to study in.
The punishment did not fit the crime.
John Wilkins
If you did that in my jurisdiction, the cop might be inclined to cite
you for some car unroadworthiness or other, but they wouldn't use a
taser on you. Not unless you tried to make them fuck off. There are very
strict rules about when police can use violence against others, and they
are strictly enforced here, after too many decades of police abuse in
that respect.
Glenn
Michael Siemon wrote:
> In article <1163821364.5...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> "Glenn" <GlennS...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > sharon wrote:
> > > > Community service officers who called in campus security, at least two
> > > > officers dragging the boy out of the library and how many, 2, 3, 4 or 5
> > > > (I can't tell) police standing behind speaking to students? That seems
> > > > to be over-doing it.
> > >
> > > Glenn wrote: "Police are largely responsible for what happens, Sharon."
> > >
> > > Sharon: They are. I guess that's my point. 5 or 6 or 7 officers /
> > > campus security, give or take and this is how they handle the matter? I
> > > would suspect none of them are professionally trained in hostage
> > > negotiations. It's imperative those guys know how to calm the
> > > situation, not make it worse.
> >
> > Well now, nobody got hurt either. Forget that?
>
> Nobody got hurt? You ever been tazered?
No, and the police report claims that he was stunned, not tazed.
>
> Glenn, your responses in this thread are making you look like a purblind
> fool, with an insane "trust" in fallible (and often arrogant, stupid, and
> malicious) "authorities" who have in fact far exceeded their warrant.
Paint on, fool. I'm on record in this thread saying that police
brutality exists, that the facts are not yet in, and not to rely on
news articles.
>
> Cops are -- often -- responsible, effective officers of legitimate
> social control. Sometimes they are responsible, but frustratingly
> ineffective.
>
> They are also -- often -- irresponsible pigs. Contemptuous of those
> they are sworn to "protect".
Often, huh. Is that meant to impress someone? How much is often? I
agree that some cops are bad. And I even partially blame the other good
ones, since they are a close knit "family".
But to equate the total number to the good ones like you just did is
*stupid* and *irresponsible*.
>
> That is _one_ reason they _must_ when challenged (in anything other
> than dangerous circumstances, which this clearly wasn't) produce
> evidence of their authority. And must follow rules of engagement that
> are _intended_ to prevent abuse. Those rules exist _because_ abuses
> exist. Cops are human -- some good, some bad, some simply off the
> wall on a bad day. If police misbehavior is _not_ challenged, then
> we are in a fair way towards a "police state" in which any cop can
> do anything at all, with no redress. That way lies Nazi America.
Police misbehavior *is* and *should be* challenged, but in the proper
setting. NOT by a group of college kids. And certainly NOT by dipsticks
that try to create it, like this moron did.
And who in the fuck are you to say that the "circumstances" were
"clearly" not dangerous?
In *no* circumstances should police be challenged while a situation is
taking place. If you do, you had better have a damn good reason for it,
and it better be a life or death reason, or close to it. Tasering and
stunning just don't cut it, fool.
Your sort of insane thinking leads to chaos, and that could open up the
way to a Hitler to gain influence.
Glenn
I'm not familiar with your laws, but I doubt things hapen much
differently. And I doubt you understand what you are saying about rules
being strictly enforced. Rules can only go so far in a potentially
dangerous situation, and *every* situation is potentially dangerous.
Police must use their own judgement of each particular situation.
"Strict rules" are just not possible, and would lead to many problems.
This is rather basic stuff, dude.
What your cop would be "inclined" to do would be to think that you are
liable to cause trouble, and I doubt he would be "inclined" not to stop
you for a violation because of that. And *when* he stopped you, he
would likely take extra precautions and not allow you any leeway, such
as demanding to see his badge number or to call your mother. If you did
anything but *just* what he said, when he said it, you'd likely find
yourself out of the car on the hood, being searched for weapons. And if
you offered even the slightest resistance, you'd likely be the
recipient of some pain. Try it sometime. Maybe you don't know your
cops, all that abuse is just hidden from the public, and AU is close to
Nazi Australia. You'd want to know, right?
Glenn
sharon wrote:
> Glenn wrote:
> > >
> > > That's what the YouTube video shows too, although the student did tell
> > > one of the officers to "Fuck off!" at one point. But that doesn't
> > > justify the actions taken.
> >
> > Oh really. I guess if a police officer wants to pull you over for a
> > speeding ticket in AU, you can just roll down the window and tell him
> > to fuck off. Give it a go, guv.
>
> The kid wasn't speeding. The kid was studying and doing his work in the
> library... just a student, right? He committed a minor infraction,
> being in the library studying past 11:30 pm.
Sharon, the cops didn't know he was a student, and the infraction was
not that he was in the library. He was arrested and charged with
resisting and obstructing an officer in the performance of his duties.
Their duty was to escort the punk out of the building, because he
refused to show an ID. They didn't know he had one, and you don't know
he had one. We don't even know if he was a student. He was asked to
produce his ID, and when he didn't, he was asked to leave. He didn't.
And he later resisted police officers in the lawful performance of
their *duty* to force him to leave. The "kid" was breaking the law. He
wasn't injured, the crowd wasn't injured, the police weren't injured,
and the incident did not escalate.
"Kids" and "minor infractions" have been known to get people killed,
Sharon. But think what you want.
snip rest
John Wilkins
Michael Siemon
"Glenn" <GlennS...@msn.com> wrote:
...
> > >
> > > Well now, nobody got hurt either. Forget that?
> >
> > Nobody got hurt? You ever been tazered?
>
> No, and the police report claims that he was stunned, not tazed.
What kind of bloody idiot are you? What do you think "stunned" means?
Why are you so pathetically insistent on defending goons and storm-
troopers? You engage in the most extravagant refusal to allow any
possible hint that the pigs might have been a bit over the top, to
the point that you are insisting on the victim being necessarily
wrong just because he was targeted.
Fegh. What are _you_ going to do when we have _our_ Krystalnacht_?
Cheer on the goons?
Police forces are necessary. Many -- I hope most -- of ours are also
principled and sensitive to the problems inherent in their tasks.
But without _strong_ checks, they are also extremely dangerous, and
there are always jerks.
Harry K
sharon wrote:
> Glenn wrote:
> > sharon wrote:
> > > > Community service officers who called in campus security, at least two
> > > > officers dragging the boy out of the library and how many, 2, 3, 4 or 5
> > > > (I can't tell) police standing behind speaking to students? That seems
> > > > to be over-doing it.
> > >
> > > Glenn wrote: "Police are largely responsible for what happens, Sharon."
> > >
> > > Sharon: They are. I guess that's my point. 5 or 6 or 7 officers /
> > > campus security, give or take and this is how they handle the matter? I
> > > would suspect none of them are professionally trained in hostage
> > > negotiations. It's imperative those guys know how to calm the
> > > situation, not make it worse.
> >
> > Well now, nobody got hurt either. Forget that?
>
> All I am saying is that when the Chief of Campus police / fellow
> officers arrived, the Chief says they 'didn't know who the guy was, he
> wouldn't identify, and they were just trying to get him out of the
> library for the safety of the other students'. (Los Angeles CBS News
> clip).
>
> Seems he'd have wanted to find out. That's done by quieting the
> situation and asking questions in a calm tone of voice.
You were doing just fine up to this point. Now just what do you think
would have happened had the student just complied with the request to
show student ID? Hmmm??
That the cops may have over-reacted after that has nothing to do with
the student causing the problem in the first place. He got what he
deserved...okay, may way more than necessary but he called it down on
his own head. The rule "comply with authority and THEN complain".
<snip>
Harry K
sharon
Harry K wrote:
tone of voice.
>
> You were doing just fine up to this point. Now just what do you think
> would have happened had the student just complied with the request to
> show student ID? Hmmm??
What if the student arrived there at 7 and didn't expect to stay past
11, or what if the student didn't really understand the policy, or
forgot his bruin card? Hmmm?? I suspect none of the students were aware
they'd get escorted out by force, manhandled by a swarm of police and
tazered for not having their card. I'm shocked. I would not want to
attend UCLA, that's for certain!
>
> That the cops may have over-reacted after that has nothing to do with
> the student causing the problem in the first place. He got what he
jeebus
> deserved...okay, may way more than necessary but he called it down on
> his own head. The rule "comply with authority and THEN complain".
wasnt' aware UCLA was a military establishment
>
> <snip>
>
> Harry K
Susan S
<sharon1...@yahoo.com>:
Being in the library after 11 p.m. is not an infraction. IIRC, the
library is open all night. The cops are allowed to check ID after 11,
not kick out the students. So, this student was not breaking the rules
because he was in the library.
Susan Silberstein
sharon
John Wilkins wrote:
>
> I think you are mentally disturbed.
one of my favorite subjects OB1.
sharon
Susan S wrote:
>
> Being in the library after 11 p.m. is not an infraction. IIRC, the
"minor infraction" is the better word. I wonder if the boy knew he must
carry ID after 11:30, or if he forgot his ID. there must be a policy
for checking id after 11:30. "minor infraction" like no smoking around
government building, and lighting up within 25 ft of the building would
hardly call for a gestapo raid with fire-engines.
scene from the movie Robocop comes to mind: OCP screws up robocop's
circuitry - pedestrian lights up a cigarette, and Robocop uses his gun
to shoot the cigarette out of the guys' mouth.
"Thank you for not smoking"
> library is open all night. The cops are allowed to check ID after 11,
> not kick out the students. So, this student was not breaking the rules
> because he was in the library.
ditto. sounds much closer to the truth.
>
> Susan Silberstein
Glenn
Sorry. I assumed you had a brain. My bad.
Robin Levett
The accounts are quite clear that he was on his way out when the police
arrived. He was complying. He was six feet from the door when the video
starts, well away from the desks.
At the time the police arrived they had no reason to arrest him. They then
laid hands on him. That's an assault. He's entitled to fight back at that
point, if he is surrounded (as he was) by a number of officers who have
begun to assault him, and he has no means of escape.
They then repeatedly tased him to try to make him stand up - when he was
already cuffed. Ever tried to stand up from lying on the floor with your
hands cuffed behind your back? There were plenty of officers there - did
they all have congenital back problems?
>
> That the cops may have over-reacted after that has nothing to do with
> the student causing the problem in the first place.
By being slow out of the library? Come on, what are you, a militant
librarian? I've got librarians in the family, and they wouldn't defend the
police conduct.
> He got what he
> deserved...okay, may way more than necessary but he called it down on
> his own head. The rule "comply with authority and THEN complain".
No; the rule is that authority complies with rules put in place to prevent
its abuse; and if it doesn't, you are entitled to resist. In fact, he
didn't resist other than possibly passively.
First they came for the Iranians...
--
Robin Levett
rle...@rlevett.ibmuklunix.net (unmunge by removing big blue - don't yahoo)
chris.li...@gmail.com
Glenn wrote:> > > > Inez wrote:
> > > > > Occidental wrote:
> > > > > > Attorney Stephen Yagman said he plans to file a federal civil rights
> > > > > > lawsuit accusing the UCLA police of "brutal excessive force," as well
> > > > > > as false arrest stemming from the Tuesday night incident at a campus
> > > > > > library.
> > > > > > Tabatabainejad screaming while on the floor of the computer lab. It was
> > > > > > the third incident in a month in which police behavior in the city was
> > > > > > criticized after amateur video surfaced. The other two involved the Los
> > > > > > Angeles Police Department.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > police is LA have a record of bad manners.
> > >
> > > LA police have a record of getting hurt and killed, not only by the
> > > perp, but sometimes from bystanders. Sure there are occasions of abuse.
> > > There always have, and always will be.
> > > The police are the *authority* in a situation, and unwanted involvement
> > > by others can not be tolerated, especially in a situation where a perp
> > > offers resistance. Sure it doesn't look good on tape. No violent act
> > > looks good. But policeman have no clear cut guideline to follow in
> > > these instances, since most anything can happen, and every situation is
> > > different. And they don't think that if a perp resists arrest that they
> > > should wait and call his mother. The campus police probably didn't know
> > > this guy from Adam, and I would not have expected them to assume
> > > anything about the student, if in fact he even is one. If you pull away
> > > from an officer escorting you out of the building, and you pull back,
> > > yell and cuss and tell the police not to touch you, you should know you
> > > will be tasered. And when you continue to resist you will likely be
> > > tasered some more to gain compliance. Had the police wrestled the punk
> > > to the floor and handcuffed him, these bleeding hearts would probably
> > > be whining the same as they are now. Especially if the idiot banged his
> > > head on something while resisting, or got punched (which is standard
> > > procedure in many cases). When you get close to an individual (it
> > > doesn't matter how many police are involved) the greater the risk to
> > > the officer. Cops have been shot because an arm got loose and grabbed a
> > > gun and in an instant a life is gone. I doubt that was an issue, but it
> > > may have been. In any event, the point is that police can not assume
> > > that anyone is not dangerous. They can't afford to assume that anyone
> > > isn't potentially capable of causing serious injury or death. All I see
> > > is knee jerking bleeding heart liberals screaming "nice student, bad
> > > cops". The claim that the cops didn't have to use that much force makes
> > > me want to tell them to spend some time in the cop's shoes.
> > > Or find out what happens when you fuck with cops who are apt to really
> > > be abusive.
> >
> > Your whole point is meaningless since these are not LAPD, they're
> > campus security.
> I read it as the UCLA police, not the campus security.
> http://www.ucpd.ucla.edu/
So in fact, the Community Service Officer (CSO) is the equivalent of
Campus Security. He got some backtalk so instead of talking the kid out
of the library (despite the fact he was already leaving) he called in
the UCLAPD, which turns out to be an arm of LAPD.
And they seem to have maintained their exemplary record in dealing with
minorities.
Chris
> >
> > If the guy was that threatening, they should have called LAPD, who
> > supposedly are better trained and equipped to handle it.
> >
> http://www.ucpd.ucla.edu/ucpd/zippdf/2006/Taser%2011-15-06.pdf
sharon
chris.li...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> So in fact, the Community Service Officer (CSO) is the equivalent of
> Campus Security. He got some backtalk so instead of talking the kid out
> of the library (despite the fact he was already leaving) he called in
> the UCLAPD, which turns out to be an arm of LAPD.
>
> And they seem to have maintained their exemplary record in dealing with
> minorities.
>
> Chris
About 500 students rally to protest the taser incident.
Scroll to November 17, under "Rally calls for investigation of UCLA
Taser Incident".
Walter Bushell
"Glenn" <GlennS...@msn.com> wrote:
> What your cop would be "inclined" to do would be to think that you are
> liable to cause trouble, and I doubt he would be "inclined" not to stop
> you for a violation because of that. And *when* he stopped you, he
> would likely take extra precautions and not allow you any leeway, such
> as demanding to see his badge number or to call your mother. If you did
> anything but *just* what he said, when he said it, you'd likely find
> yourself out of the car on the hood, being searched for weapons. And if
> you offered even the slightest resistance, you'd likely be the
> recipient of some pain. Try it sometime. Maybe you don't know your
> cops, all that abuse is just hidden from the public, and AU is close to
> Nazi Australia. You'd want to know, right?
The police have a good idea of the type of people they can push around
and how far. If you are driving a BMV you are safe from a lot of
harassment unless, you are doing something else like, DWB. Has DWB been
changed yet to DWAA?
--
"The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any
charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgement of his
peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totali-
tarian government whether Nazi or Communist." -- W. Churchill, Nov 21, 1943
Glenn
the story as bad, to make your point that the incident was an example
of police brutality, racial profiling, and whatever else you can think
of to tack on. I'm sure that some of the bystanders there were the
mirror image of this mindset, and would "see" what happened as bad.
I watched the video again, and there's students that should not have
been involved, within a couple feet of cops waving arms around and
arguing loudly. That's dangerous, ignorant, and intimates such strong
emotion and opinion, that if I were there I might have believed there
was a real potential for violent behavior. Protesting college students
aren't incapable, especially if they believe that they are "entitled"
or have a "right" to resist and even defend themselves or others from
the police, of being violent. We aren't ruled by mob law yet, and
whether they are right or wrong, or are abusing use of tazers, our
society can not allow mob rule.
The campus security officer is just a kid himself. Apparently he
alleges that he did get some backtalk after doing his duty. After
announcing that ID checks were to be made, asking the perp to leave
when he refused to provide his ID, he called or went to get an UCPD
officer when the perp didn't leave. I don't know where you got this
"UCLAPD", but I don't think that the UCPD force is an "arm" of the
LAPD. Irregardless, they are authorized police. And when they arrived,
the perp had not left. They had a duty to get the perp out of the
building and deal with him afterwards, or simply let him go. It is not
clear as to whether he was willing and in the process of leaving
voluntarily once the cops showed up. And it doesn't matter. The cops
*are* entitled to hold the perp by the arm and escort him out, making
sure that is what happened. The punk was in no way shape or fashion,
"entitled" to resist. If he did, he was impeding an officer of the law
in his duties. And "let go of me!" sure sounds like that's what
happened.
Glenn
Walter Bushell wrote:
> In article <1163836953.5...@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> "Glenn" <GlennS...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > What your cop would be "inclined" to do would be to think that you are
> > liable to cause trouble, and I doubt he would be "inclined" not to stop
> > you for a violation because of that. And *when* he stopped you, he
> > would likely take extra precautions and not allow you any leeway, such
> > as demanding to see his badge number or to call your mother. If you did
> > anything but *just* what he said, when he said it, you'd likely find
> > yourself out of the car on the hood, being searched for weapons. And if
> > you offered even the slightest resistance, you'd likely be the
> > recipient of some pain. Try it sometime. Maybe you don't know your
> > cops, all that abuse is just hidden from the public, and AU is close to
> > Nazi Australia. You'd want to know, right?
>
> The police have a good idea of the type of people they can push around
> and how far. If you are driving a BMV you are safe from a lot of
> harassment unless, you are doing something else like, DWB. Has DWB been
> changed yet to DWAA?
>
But I wonder if you think that BMW drivers are not stopped for speeding
violations, or that you think stopping a speeding driver is harassment?
Would you consider a driver telling a cop to fuck off as being
harassment?
Mark Isaak
> [...]
> First they came for the Iranians...
Has anyone mentioned yet that the student was an American of Iranian
descent?
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
Glenn
Desertphile wrote:
> Yeah, I know it's off-topic. You lot who wonder how fucked up the USA
> has become will get an education by viewing the viedo at
> http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/11/16/ucla-student-tasered-in-library/
>
> It was so brutal and abusive that I could not watch it all.
>
"Here's your Patriot Act, here's your f&*$ing abuse of power," while he
struggled with the officers."
Perhaps he is just an innocent sweet boy caught up in all the
corruption, police abuse and anti civil rights activity in the bad US,
but who knows. (The police did, of course, but they will deny it and
claim they had no idea who he was)
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6175
"MSA strongly opposes the Patriot Act, which it describes as an
"infamous" piece of legislation. The organization's chapters across the
United States have similarly denounced virtually every other national
security initiative implemented by the U.S. government since the 9/11
attacks.
MSA chose not to endorse or participate in the May 14, 2005 "Free
Muslims March Against Terror," an event whose stated purpose was to
"send a message to the terrorists and extremists that their days are
numbered ... [and to send] a message to the people of the Middle East,
the Muslim world and all people who seek freedom, democracy and
peaceful coexistence that we support them."
MSA's President as of September 2006 was Mohamed Sheibani, a
fourth-year student attending the University of Ottawa; from 2003-2004,
he served as President of the Muslim Youth of Ottawa.
Noteworthy news items related to MSA include the following:
On October 22, 2000, Ahmed Shama, President of the UCLA Muslim
Students' Association, led a crowd of demonstrators at the Israeli
consulate in chants of "Death to Israel!" and "Death to the Jews!" One
guest speaker at the event was Hamid Ayloush, a member of the Council
on American-Islamic Relations, which co-sponsored the rally. In his
speech, Ayloush solicited contributions for the aforementioned Holy
Land Foundation.
At a January 21, 2001 MSA event, guest speaker Imam Musa declared: "If
you were to say that the Soviet Union [would be] wiped off the face of
the earth ... people would have thought you were crazy, right? The
people of Afghanistan didn't have the intellect or historical knowledge
to know that they wasn't supposed to wipe out the Soviet Union, is that
right? ... We saw the fall of one so-called superpower; Old Sam [the
U.S.] is next."
MSA members at UCLA raised money for Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists at
their annual "Anti-Zionist Week."
In March 2003, speaker Muammad Faheed told an MSA meeting at
Queensborough Community College in New York, "The only relationship you
should have with America is to topple it!"
********************************
http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/call_for_probe_of_ucla_muslim_student_taser_incident/0011752
"Given the circumstances involved, only an outside, independent probe
will ensure that the civil rights aspects of this case are being taken
seriously and will be addressed in an impartial manner."
"CAIR has 32 offices and chapters nationwide and in Canada. Its mission
is to enhance the understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect
civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that
promote justice and mutual understanding."
*******************************
http://judiciary.senate.gov/testimony.cfm?id=827&wit_id=2356
"The main organizations that have carried out this campaign are the
Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), which originated in the Muslim
Students' Association of the U.S. and Canada (MSA), and the Council
on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)."
Glenn
It's quite curious that you can make all this up from watching that
video, which starts with several seconds of nice shots of floors and
walls with a commotion in the background.
Tell me, how far away from where he was allegedly studying is it, to
the exit?
>
> At the time the police arrived they had no reason to arrest him. They then
> laid hands on him. That's an assault. He's entitled to fight back at that
> point, if he is surrounded (as he was) by a number of officers who have
> begun to assault him, and he has no means of escape.
That's pure crap. The campus police have the authority to ask for ID
and to tell students that do not comply or are causing trouble to
leave. And whether it appeared to you, or to anyone, that the perps
intent was to leave, or that he would have continued even for those
last few steps you created in your mind, the police *did* have the
authority to hold him by the arm and escort him the rest of the way
out. And you are simply loony to claim that was "assault" and that he
was "entitled to fight back". You're a real loony bird, dude.
His means of escape was to comply with and not resist police officers.
Plain and simple.
>
> They then repeatedly tased him to try to make him stand up - when he was
> already cuffed. Ever tried to stand up from lying on the floor with your
> hands cuffed behind your back? There were plenty of officers there - did
> they all have congenital back problems?
>
You don't know when he was cuffed. And getting him to stand on his own
and comply is a decision that police are well within their power to
determine. That the police there had the strength or lacked back
problems to move him in any manner is not the point. Perps often offer
resistance when cuffed, and some have even killed and escaped while
cuffed. It was their call, not yours. I can imagine that since they
eventually "dragged" him out, and I think there is some evidence of
that on the tape, that while in the process of trying to avoid being
accused of abuse by dragging him around and possibly injuring him, that
they tried to get him to comply, and it's not hard to determine whether
a perp has strength in his arms and legs, and what he is doing with it.
I'd say that he was fighting with the officers, and finally gave up
after being stunned several times.
> >
> > That the cops may have over-reacted after that has nothing to do with
> > the student causing the problem in the first place.
>
> By being slow out of the library? Come on, what are you, a militant
> librarian? I've got librarians in the family, and they wouldn't defend the
> police conduct.
Then you're all loons. The student called this on himself. Students are
required to have and show ID when asked. He refused to leave, and had
not left.
>
> > He got what he
> > deserved...okay, may way more than necessary but he called it down on
> > his own head. The rule "comply with authority and THEN complain".
>
> No; the rule is that authority complies with rules put in place to prevent
> its abuse; and if it doesn't, you are entitled to resist. In fact, he
> didn't resist other than possibly passively.
You don't know that. It doesn't take much to actively resist. And there
is no rule about being entitled to *resist*. You're out of your mind.
>
> First they came for the Iranians...
>
You need to stop trying to figure out complex issues and start with
"Jack and Jill went up the hill".
Cirbryn
> Cirbryn wrote:
> > You can refuse any unlawful order, from the cops or anyone else. If
> > you're walking on the street and a cop detains you and asks for ID
> > without cause, you can legally refuse. (Practically, you'd be taking a
> > big chance that the cop couldn't convince the judge she detained you
> > based on some reasonable suspicion of unlawful activity. See
> > http://www.safarix.com/0131102729/ch03.)
>
> Now how do you suppose you can know if the cop has no cause? You'd
> *have* to *know* that. And what kind of reference is that??
As I said, if you don't do what the cop says then you're taking a
chance that a court will find later that the cop was issuing a lawful
order. How big a chance depends on the situation and on what the cop is
telling you to do. The cop is taking a similar chance when she orders
you to do something. The fact that neither side can *know* until after
the fact whether she did the right thing encourages both sides to act
reasonably and not skirt too close to the line. In the case of a cop
detaining you and asking for ID, that line is generally going to be
reasonable suspicion of unlawful activity. In this case the situation
is complicated by the fact that it wasn't a completely public venue,
and the cops were attempting to enforce a previously existing policy of
the building managers. So in this case the problem wasn't so much that
they didn't have the right to tell the student to leave, it was the
unreasonable force they used in getting him out. The basic point
remains, however, that there are limits to what the cops can legally
order you to do, and if they cross those limits you can legally refuse
to do it.
And the reference looks to me to be a page from a textbook used to
train cops. It provides a citation to the Supreme Court decision in
which the "reasonable suspicion" standard was established. (Terry v
Ohio, 392 US 1, 1968). That case can be found here
http://tinyurl.com/yznwdh.
> Cops do not have to give you a reason for anything, dude.
They might not have to give me a reason, but they have to give one to
the court. That reason must be articulable, not just a hunch. If the
cop has an articulable reason, the court would likely be interested in
knowing why she didn't provide it to me at the time, rather than
leaving me to take up the court's time based on the assumption that
there was no such reason.
> But the
> campus cops certainly do not need a reason to spot check IDs. He simply
> has *no* right to refuse, since he was in a building that required ID.
They do need a reason to spot-check IDs. That's what Terry vs Ohio
established. That reason may be that the managers of the building he
was in had previously established a reasonable and generally applicable
policy based on articulable reasons other than simple prejudice, and
that they carried out that policy without bias. If so, then a court
would very likely find the reason sufficient.
> Why, if he had an ID, he might have thought that simply producing the
> ID would have gotten him into trouble is beyond me. Maybe he resisted
> because he thought he was being discriminated against. Well, he was,
> but by himself. He could not have known that the cops were
> intentionally discriminating against him. If that were assumed, people
> of middle eastern descent simply would have immunity. Now that's a
> thought.
Neither discrimination nor lack of discrimination is assumed. Both the
cops and the building managers needed to have articulable
non-discriminatory reasons for requiring him to leave. If they had such
reasons, then the requirement was lawful. If they didn't then it
wasn't.
> If the student began to leave and was just tasered as he went along his
> way out of the room as you are wont to portray, then the police would
> be in the wrong. I suspect you are full of shit, though. And if he was
> tasered after being handcuffed is not in itself enough reason to
> determine that unneccesary force was used. People can hurt, kill,
> escape, push buttons, throw things, all kinds of acts, while
> handcuffed, dude. If he was handcuffed and resisted efforts to move him
> out of the room, the increased use of force could easily be justified.
> You don't get to just do what you want, dude.
>From what I gather, and as others have summarized, the student was
leaving but the cops tried to manhandle him out anyway. The student
tried to pull away so he could leave on his own (which is what he'd
been asked to do). A scuffle ensued, and the cops tasered him.
Repeatedly. Telling him to get up even as he claimed he was unable to
because of the taser effects. Now if you think I'm full of shit then
tell me where I got it wrong. And while you're at it, tell me why the
cops couldn't have just let him walk out of the building under his own
power in the first place. As for being tasered while in handcuffs, yes
it's theoretically possible to remain a danger requiring that level of
force even while in cuffs. Do you have any evidence to indicate that
was the case? Did he tackle a cop or lunge for a gun or something like
that? Or are you instead trying to claim that the cops can taser anyone
in cuffs on the grounds that such a person might theoretically do
something dangerous?
> No, cops don't usually get away with telling you to do "whatever they
> want", but they certainly have the authority to tell you to do whatever
> *they* see is justified, and to use force if you refuse.
What's the difference between not being able to tell you to do whatever
they want, but being able to tell you to do whatever they think is
justified?
> *You* don't
> get to decide what is "legal" and what is not.
Correct. Neither do the cops. That's the court's job.
> Good grief. You sound
> like some drug crazed hippie from the 60s.
Or possibly like a Supreme Court justice from the 60s, when Terry vs
Ohio was decided.
> And heeding your counsel
> could prove disasterous for those who think you have some correct sense
> about this. These things are settled after the fact, not during. And if
> you do "refuse", you'd better have a damn good reason and be able to
> prove it.
Obviously these things are settled after the fact. But you seem to
think that because the cops can bring greater firepower to the
immediate situation, that means that what they say goes. Here in
America we don't determine a person's rights according to how big his
gun is. This isn't about whether the cops had the physical ability to
taser the student. It's about whether they should be brought to account
for doing so.
Glenn
Nothing you have said up to this last sentence, lends any support
whatsoever to this last sentence.
>
> And the reference looks to me to be a page from a textbook used to
> train cops. It provides a citation to the Supreme Court decision in
> which the "reasonable suspicion" standard was established. (Terry v
> Ohio, 392 US 1, 1968). That case can be found here
> http://tinyurl.com/yznwdh.
And where in Terry do you find support for your claim that citizens can
legally refuse an order from a policeman?
>
> > Cops do not have to give you a reason for anything, dude.
>
> They might not have to give me a reason, but they have to give one to
> the court. That reason must be articulable, not just a hunch. If the
> cop has an articulable reason, the court would likely be interested in
> knowing why she didn't provide it to me at the time, rather than
> leaving me to take up the court's time based on the assumption that
> there was no such reason.
Of course, in court. That is in the *future*. But if you resist a cop,
even if he is later found to have not had reasonable cause, then you
would still have been breaking the law, by resisting. You could get out
of paying for it, however.
>
> > But the
> > campus cops certainly do not need a reason to spot check IDs. He simply
> > has *no* right to refuse, since he was in a building that required ID.
>
> They do need a reason to spot-check IDs. That's what Terry vs Ohio
> established. That reason may be that the managers of the building he
> was in had previously established a reasonable and generally applicable
> policy based on articulable reasons other than simple prejudice, and
> that they carried out that policy without bias. If so, then a court
> would very likely find the reason sufficient.
You still haven't supported your contention that citizens have a right
to resist.
It's simply not the individuals call. It's the law's and court's call.
I agree that there must be a reason for "arresting" fourth amendment
freedoms. Yet asking for ID is not "arresting", and I imagine that it
is known that students are required to show their IDs when asked by the
campus cops or the U cops.
You seem to be trying to make a connection between prejudice and spot
checking. Maybe you didn't intend to. Just so you are aware that the
practice of spot checking is not in itself evidence of prejudice,
stereotyping or profiling. It's unwise, considering this fine line the
courts have drawn. The campus cop might not have had reasonable cause,
yet the student resisted. Resisting is not legal. Nor were the weapons
found as a result of the patdown in Terry. That's why the kid was
booked.
>
> > Why, if he had an ID, he might have thought that simply producing the
> > ID would have gotten him into trouble is beyond me. Maybe he resisted
> > because he thought he was being discriminated against. Well, he was,
> > but by himself. He could not have known that the cops were
> > intentionally discriminating against him. If that were assumed, people
> > of middle eastern descent simply would have immunity. Now that's a
> > thought.
>
> Neither discrimination nor lack of discrimination is assumed. Both the
> cops and the building managers needed to have articulable
> non-discriminatory reasons for requiring him to leave. If they had such
> reasons, then the requirement was lawful. If they didn't then it
> wasn't.
Dude, plain and simple, he didn't produce the required ID. Apparently
the library requires ID.
Now I think that they should check ID at the door. That is still not
relevant to the issue, that the student did not produce, and refused to
show ID.
>
> > If the student began to leave and was just tasered as he went along his
> > way out of the room as you are wont to portray, then the police would
> > be in the wrong. I suspect you are full of shit, though. And if he was
> > tasered after being handcuffed is not in itself enough reason to
> > determine that unneccesary force was used. People can hurt, kill,
> > escape, push buttons, throw things, all kinds of acts, while
> > handcuffed, dude. If he was handcuffed and resisted efforts to move him
> > out of the room, the increased use of force could easily be justified.
> > You don't get to just do what you want, dude.
>
> >From what I gather, and as others have summarized, the student was
> leaving but the cops tried to manhandle him out anyway. The student
> tried to pull away so he could leave on his own (which is what he'd
> been asked to do). A scuffle ensued, and the cops tasered him.
> Repeatedly. Telling him to get up even as he claimed he was unable to
> because of the taser effects. Now if you think I'm full of shit then
> tell me where I got it wrong. And while you're at it, tell me why the
> cops couldn't have just let him walk out of the building under his own
> power in the first place. As for being tasered while in handcuffs, yes
> it's theoretically possible to remain a danger requiring that level of
> force even while in cuffs. Do you have any evidence to indicate that
> was the case? Did he tackle a cop or lunge for a gun or something like
> that? Or are you instead trying to claim that the cops can taser anyone
> in cuffs on the grounds that such a person might theoretically do
> something dangerous?
I need to know nothing more here than when a law officer gets you by
the arm and tells you to come with him, you had better comply, or find
yourself being booked for resisting arrest.
But apparently you have just passed on any attempt to support your
contention that citizens have the right to resist, so maybe I'm beating
a dead horse here. And I'm not sure which way you are wanting to go
with this, that he had a right to resist because blah blah blah, or
that the police went too far in their legal duty. Perhaps you want to
portray both as being the case. But the UCPD officers responded to a
call that a student was in an area late at night refusing to supply an
ID, and had also refused to leave. When they arrived, the student was
still there. Spin it anyway you want. You don't fuck with cops. Maybe
you can get away with fucking with a volunteer officer, but that is a
different matter. The volunteer cop did not restrict the perps freedom.
And the cops were well within their power to forcefully if necessary,
escort the perp out of the building - and as quick as possible, while
avoiding mob violence and complying with police rules. Tasering,
actually he was stunned, if you understand the difference, is effective
and relatively safe tool police can use in for a variety of reasons. If
they stunned him once too many times unnecessarily, perhaps they will
be disciplined. I simply don't know their reasons, and it's not really
constructive to imagine why they might have chosen the methods they
used.
>
> > No, cops don't usually get away with telling you to do "whatever they
> > want", but they certainly have the authority to tell you to do whatever
> > *they* see is justified, and to use force if you refuse.
>
> What's the difference between not being able to tell you to do whatever
> they want, but being able to tell you to do whatever they think is
> justified?
I don't quite understand what you mean by difference. Things that are
not the same are different. Above, I could have substituted "whatever
they want" with "whatever they see is justified". The difference
between what they want and what they feel is justified includes many
things, I should think. Education, training, experience, tests, all
influence a cops performance. The point is, for the umpteenth time,
citizens do not have a right to decide what the motivation of a cop is
and resist.
>
> > *You* don't
> > get to decide what is "legal" and what is not.
>
> Correct. Neither do the cops. That's the court's job.
Agreed. Sheesh. I'll remind you this is what I reacted to:
"You can refuse any unlawful order, from the cops or anyone else. If
you're walking on the street and a cop detains you and asks for ID
without cause, you can legally refuse."
>
> > Good grief. You sound
> > like some drug crazed hippie from the 60s.
>
> Or possibly like a Supreme Court justice from the 60s, when Terry vs
> Ohio was decided.
And yet again I'll remind you of what I reacted to:
"You can refuse any unlawful order, from the cops or anyone else. If
you're walking on the street and a cop detains you and asks for ID
without cause, you can legally refuse."
You started out appearing as if you were willing and trying to defend
that claim.
>
> > And heeding your counsel
> > could prove disasterous for those who think you have some correct sense
> > about this. These things are settled after the fact, not during. And if
> > you do "refuse", you'd better have a damn good reason and be able to
> > prove it.
>
> Obviously these things are settled after the fact. But you seem to
> think that because the cops can bring greater firepower to the
> immediate situation, that means that what they say goes. Here in
> America we don't determine a person's rights according to how big his
> gun is. This isn't about whether the cops had the physical ability to
> taser the student. It's about whether they should be brought to account
> for doing so.
You started out wanting to argue with me about rights, and even after
eventually coming to agreement with me, and hearing from me that "these
things are settled after the fact", you make inferences that I am not
aware that there is such a thing as judicial process??
Heeding your previous council, if it is indeed "previous", might have
been what got this jerkball in trouble in the first place.
Glenn
Desertphile wrote:
> Yeah, I know it's off-topic. You lot who wonder how fucked up the USA
> has become will get an education by viewing the viedo at
> http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/11/16/ucla-student-tasered-in-library/
>
> It was so brutal and abusive that I could not watch it all.
>
http://www.progressiveu.org/123219-ucla-campus-cops
"In my estimation, the observers of these actions are just as much to
blame as the cops. When cops, any cops, do this kind of thing, it is
the duty of any citizen of this great land to intervene...physically if
necessary. Just remember, there's more of us than there are of them.
"They got the guns, but we got the numbers" as Jim Morrison wrote.
There were enough students in this library to overpower, disarm,
handcuff, and march these security guards back to their barracks.
Abuses of power can only be overcome by immediate, unrelenting force.
Not deadly force, only cowards use that. But a swarm of people
making a citizen's arrest would have resolved this situation quickly
and definitively. Police that act like this are cowards and liars, no
better than child molesters. they do not deserve to be Americans."
Now that is really showing some responsibility there. It reflects the
attitudes of at least half of the respondents in this thread. I wonder
if they would use tasers. Heil, Desertphile.
Walter Bushell
"Glenn" <GlennS...@msn.com> wrote:
> Walter Bushell wrote:
> > In article <1163836953.5...@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Glenn" <GlennS...@msn.com> wrote:
> >
> > > What your cop would be "inclined" to do would be to think that you are
> > > liable to cause trouble, and I doubt he would be "inclined" not to stop
> > > you for a violation because of that. And *when* he stopped you, he
> > > would likely take extra precautions and not allow you any leeway, such
> > > as demanding to see his badge number or to call your mother. If you did
> > > anything but *just* what he said, when he said it, you'd likely find
> > > yourself out of the car on the hood, being searched for weapons. And if
> > > you offered even the slightest resistance, you'd likely be the
> > > recipient of some pain. Try it sometime. Maybe you don't know your
> > > cops, all that abuse is just hidden from the public, and AU is close to
> > > Nazi Australia. You'd want to know, right?
> >
> > The police have a good idea of the type of people they can push around
> > and how far. If you are driving a BMV you are safe from a lot of
> > harassment unless, you are doing something else like, DWB. Has DWB been
> > changed yet to DWAA?
> >
> Driving while bombed? I don't know what that means.
Driving While Black
> But I wonder if you think that BMW drivers are not stopped for speeding
> violations, or that you think stopping a speeding driver is harassment?
>
> Would you consider a driver telling a cop to fuck off as being
> harassment?
--
Divided we stand!
sharon
Glenn wrote:
> Not deadly force, only cowards use that. But a swarm of people
> making a citizen's arrest would have resolved this situation quickly
> and definitively. Police that act like this are cowards and liars, no
> better than child molesters. they do not deserve to be Americans."
>
> Now that is really showing some responsibility there. It reflects the
> attitudes of at least half of the respondents in this thread. I wonder
> if they would use tasers. Heil, Desertphile.
Nobody in their right mind would have suggested or thought to do such a
thing. You're projecting an attitude on him, that I've have no
recollection reading his posts, (including his site/s) that would lead
me to believe he'd endorse such behavior, and likely pertains to half
the people on the thread. But to make your point stick, you'd point out
this kind of extremist?
You're patriotic, that's great. But sometimes law enforcement (like
UCLA security) need to be reminded they're the civil servants.
Harry K
sharon wrote:
> Harry K wrote:
> tone of voice.
> >
> > You were doing just fine up to this point. Now just what do you think
> > would have happened had the student just complied with the request to
> > show student ID? Hmmm??
>
> What if the student arrived there at 7 and didn't expect to stay past
> 11, or what if the student didn't really understand the policy, or
> forgot his bruin card? Hmmm?? I suspect none of the students were aware
> they'd get escorted out by force, manhandled by a swarm of police and
> tazered for not having their card. I'm shocked. I would not want to
> attend UCLA, that's for certain!
>
I repeat. What if the student had complied with the request by a
figure of authority at the beginning? Yes, campus police are authority
> >
> > That the cops may have over-reacted after that has nothing to do with
> > the student causing the problem in the first place. He got what he
>
> jeebus
>
> > deserved...okay, may way more than necessary but he called it down on
> > his own head. The rule "comply with authority and THEN complain".
>
> wasnt' aware UCLA was a military establishment
Just what is that supossed to mean? Certainly being or not being a
military establishment has nothing to do with the discussion. To give
you a dose of reality. If you think that only the military are
'figures of authority' you need to study some civics.
Harry K
Harry K
What you said ;)
At the end of the day: When confronted by a cop - comply with the
request even if you think it is wrong. Complain afterward. You then
have a chance for recourse. Resist and you are asking for trouble.
The reality is that if the request was not justified and you resist it
you will still be charged (and most likely convicted) of 'resisting',
justifiably so. Of course the game for the juvenile minds is to
resist at the start and then bitch about receiving the consequences.
The juvenile minds will keep insisting that you have a 'right to
resist' but they can never give a cite for anything in law to that
effect.
I don't know the ages of anyone in this discussion but there for sure
are a bunch of immature juvenile minds running around.
Harry K
Harry K
I, for one, have not been defending goons and stormtroopers. Haven't
even defended the cops other than to point out that the student caused
the problem to begin with by not complying at the start. The
initiation of the struggle is not shown. I tend to agree that what
happened after the struggle started appears to be way more than
necessary and that will come out in the investigation.
Again, comply with a cops request and nothing will happen. Complain to
higher ups afterward. Resist and don't come around crying and moaning
about the results. Any one stupid enough to try to go even one on one
with a cop while he is unarmed is...well stupid.
Harry K
sharon
Harry K wrote:
> sharon wrote:
> I repeat. What if the student had complied with the request by a
> figure of authority at the beginning? Yes, campus police are authority
>
he was leaving the building. he attempted to comply. upon doing so, he
got mobbed by overzealous police.
> > >
> > > That the cops may have over-reacted after that has nothing to do with
> > > the student causing the problem in the first place. He got what he
> >
> > jeebus
> >
> > > deserved...okay, may way more than necessary but he called it down on
> > > his own head. The rule "comply with authority and THEN complain".
> >
> > wasnt' aware UCLA was a military establishment
>
> Just what is that supossed to mean? Certainly being or not being a
> military establishment has nothing to do with the discussion.
oh yes it does! yes it does. I have been on military base, and growing
up around a dad who was an officer -, when they say "do not enter",
"bring card, be prepared to get id'd on entry", etc., they mean
exactly what they say. you can get in trouble if you go into a zone on
the base that's off limit to civilian. that's why the bases are fenced
off from the public. you can get shot by MP.
UCLA is for "college kids", who do not expect to be punished with
physical force, for failing to show identification. Many students now
at UCLA feel they are not safe, not from criminals, but security.
Ironic, isn't it?
To give
> you a dose of reality. If you think that only the military are
> 'figures of authority' you need to study some civics.
Tell me nothing about military or law enforcement. I have good friends
that are law enforcement, and they never act as stupid as the ucla
police. Save your breath!!!
>
> Harry K
chris.li...@gmail.com
Glenn wrote:
> Free Lunch wrote:
> > On 17 Nov 2006 18:23:02 -0800, in talk.origins
> > "Glenn" <GlennS...@msn.com> wrote in
> > <1163816582....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
> > >
> > >chris.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> > ...
> > >> Remember RoadRunner? That smarmy Nazi Holocaust-denier? Remember how
> > >> Glenn went after that son of a bitch? It's disappointing to see he
> > >> doesn't realize how the facism starts.
> > >>
> > >> Maybe _Glenn_ needs someone to stand over him, screaming and
> > >> threatening to taze him _again_ if he doesn't stand up. Did you hear
> > >> that poor dude screaming "I can't! I can't!"
> > >>
> > >> As far as common sense, it's the government version of a parent yelling
> > >> at a kid, "I'll give you something to cry about!"
> > >>
> > >Nah, it's your idiocy talking. What is dissapointing is that even
> > >seemingly respectable members of society such as teachers, think that
> > >cops should always take time out of their lax schedules to provide
> > >people with their badge numbers, on demand. And run around like a mad
> > >dog mob not relying on logic and evidence, whining about losing civil
> > >liberties whenever they see anything that upsets them. That's truly
> > >disgusting.
> >
> > Thanks for letting us know how committed you are to authoritarianism.
> >
> > Shall we check to see if you support totalitarianism as well?
>
> Oh quit your liberal whining. There is a time to change things, and a
> time for justice to be served. It isn't with snot nosed punks thinking
> they can get away with civil disobedience.
Quit your conservative whining. If something needs to be changed, then
it's time to change it. And it's always time for justice.
Funny thing, though. Last time I checked, "justice" didn't mean the
police meting out punishment before a trial. And for sure justice
isn't right wing armchair brownshirts cheering on a bunch of thugs
tazing someone who's already incapacitated.
Chris