Police bullies at it again. UCLA police tasering handcuffed student.

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by quiet bear

I have to disagree with your disagreement, CM. LOL. the first thing an officer does when arriving upon a scene is gain control of the situation.

Okay. What you said was "Immobilize and gain control. That's a police officer's job." To me that did not connote, e.g., controlling the situation without touching or threatening the people involved.

*edit* when I agreed he was looking for a fight, I didn't mean it in the literal sense. I meant he was being uncooperative, and a general pain in the a$$. I wasn't trying to 'prove' anything. I was simply stating my opinions on the information provided.

Fair enough. I assumed you were agreeing that he was looking for a fight, since JD said "he was looking for a fight" and you said "I agree". I suppose that I also took the factors you went on to quote and list from the story, interwoven with notes about your opinion and how your opinion had changed on the basis of them, as signs that you were giving reasons for your opinion. I meant to observe that those reasons don't seem to support the opinion, from all I could see.

Do I think he should have been tased while handcuffed? No. I never said that. I don't think, once someone is restrained, there is any need to do anything else. The objective has been accomplished. The 'perp' is in custody. Toss them in the car and let them beat their head against the window if they want.

Then I don't think we disagree about that. I was taking the basic point of the thread to be the question of whether tasing the guy repeatedly was justifiable. In several posts now I've tried to be pretty clear in asking whether the repeated tasing particular is what this "He was asking for it" line is supposed to address. Thanks for clarifying that, for you at least, it is not.

[quiet bear]

well, if you want to parse words, what JD said was, it 'sounds to him' like the guy was looking for a fight. and I agreed. Neither of us stated as fact 'the guy was looking for a fight, which seems to be what you're trying to make it out to be.

i won't argue with you. You have your opinion, I have mine. I respect yours, and I hope you'll respect mine.

[D. Scarlatti]

I agree that it sounded to JD like the guy was looking for a fight.

[Clutch Munny]

You must be The Unpopular Stompin' Tom Connors.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by California Tanker

What they need to do is have a taser inbuilt into steering wheels. Whenever you see a guy driving like a jackass, type the license plate into a central computer. After five votes, the steering wheel zaps the driver.

I would totally vote for this.

[Angakuk]

That he was leaving the building at the time the officers took physical custody raises a question in my mind. Why would the police feel it was appropriate to take him into physical custody (i.e. grab him by the arms) if their sole purpose was to insure that he complied with the order to leave the building? That doesn't make sense to me. So, might there have been some other reason they felt it necessary to take him into physical custody? It occurs to me that, given the heightened state of fear with regard to terrorist threats, they may have seen his earlier refusal to provide ID as a suspicious action. An action that merited further investigation. Investigation which it would have been difficult to conduct if they simply let him walk away. Apparently, his initial offense was the refusal to present his ID card. This was compounded by an initial refusal to comply with the order to leave the premises. When the UCPD officers arrived on the scene he was, apparently, in the process of rectifying the second offense. The first offense, the failure to provide ID is, at this point, still outstanding.

This raises to specific questions with regard to procedure.

1. Did his refusal to provide ID constitute sufficient grounds for detaining for the purpose of identification?

2. Did his, apparently passive, resistance to detention justify the use of the tazer.

I have a mixed response to #1. On the one hand, I am inclined to think that as long as he was complying with the order to leave, his refusal to provide ID is a non-issue. On the other hand, both his middle-eastern appearance and his refusal to provide ID might, given the current state of anxiety about security issues, constitute some justification for his detention. Targeting him solely on the basis of his appearance would probably meet the definition of racial profiling. The addition of his non-compliance would seem to raise the motivation underlying the act of detention above the level of mere racial profiling.

With regard to #2, it seems pretty unambiguously inappropriate. He was not physically threatening the officers, or anyone else. The point of non-violent resistance is to make a political statement without inviting violent retaliation. I don't believe that it is appropriate for the authorities to employ violent measures just to force compliance. Violent measures should only be employed in response to violent actions or threats of violent action. Responding to non-violent resistance with violence guarantees that the authorities will face criticism for their actions. Which may just be the point of the whole episode anyway.

[California Tanker]

Why would the police feel it was appropriate to take him into physical custody (i.e. grab him by the arms) if their sole purpose was to insure that he complied with the order to leave the building?

I'm not sure they knew that was their sole purpose.

Look at it from the cop's point of view. There they are, at the campus dounut shop, and they get a call from dispatch. "Adam 12, proceed to Powell Library for a report of a disturbance involving Campus Patrol and a male." They show up, and see a chap who sees them, and apparently has suddenly decided that he needs to make himself scarce and is moving to walk out the door. Can you blame any cop for saying "whoa there, Nellie" and looking to hold him from leaving until they sort out just what happened to get them called there in the first place? For all the cop knows, there may have been an incident which requires further action, maybe even charges. We know the chap was walking out the door when the cop laid an arm on him. Do we know that the cops were intending to escort him out the door at that moment and time? Looking back over the reports quoted in this thread, I don't think we can.

Part of the problem with our Monday-Morning-Quarterbacking is that we are ascribing information to the participants which we don't know that they were aware of, much as we are also making assumptions of our own.

NTM

[Clutch Munny]

I don't think anyone's claiming to have all the data. Even the police and Tabatabainejad would be unwise to make such a claim.

If you think that there's too little data to comment, it's fair enough to refrain from commenting. If there's enough to justify commenting, though, it's hard to see the difference between "Monday Morning Quarterbacking" and "exercising moral and situational judgement".

[California Tanker]

Depends on what the commentary is. The original post, and a large portion of the posts subsequent are very clearly a case of people calling "Blatant police brutality!" I, JD, and a couple of others are saying "Hang on with your condemnation, the police might have had a point". I don't think anyone is unquestioningly saying "The police were absolutely correct in all their actions."

NTM

[Clutch Munny]

And the reply has been -- at least from me -- that I don't particularly see how the repeated themes of "It coulda been worse" and "He had it coming" establish that police might have had a point.

[California Tanker]

Originally Posted by Clutch Munny

And the reply has been -- at least from me -- that I don't particularly see how the repeated themes of "It coulda been worse" and "He had it coming" establish that police might have had a point.

I believe the "It could have been worse" argument, more specifically in my case, "In the old days, things were done a little more physically" was in reference to the general discussion on use of tasers as a concept, more than the applicability in this particular incident. The "Had it coming" argument seems just as valid or invalid as arguments saying "Give a guy a badge and a gun and he becomes a thug" which are also being made.

NTM

[Clutch Munny]

Yes. Invalid, in both cases (and moreover not cogent).

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by CT

I'm not sure they knew that was their sole purpose.

That was the point I was trying to make, though apparently not very successfully. If their sole purpose was to escort him out of the building, then taking physical custody doesn't seem to make sense. Therefore, it seems reasonable to conjecture that they had some other purpose which, in their judgement, merited detaining the suspect for further inquiry.

[mountain_hare]

quiet bear:

Let's see. First, he refuses to provide identification, then refuses to leave the building. Interesting.

I'm just curious, but are you literate?

Not immediately leaving the building =/= A refusal to leave the building.

He could have been taking his sweet ass time. He could have been saving his work onto a disk before shutting down the computer. He could have been putting his stuff in his backpack.

Quite simply, he was leaving the building at the time the officers arrived (about 5 minutes after he was giving the warning to leave. That's quite reasonable, if you tie up whatever you are doing, save your work, and pack your bags). So no, he didn't 'refuse' to leave the building. I suggest you stop making shit up.

[California Tanker]

If the guy was leaving in a reasonable amount of time, why did the Campus Patrol feel the need to call the UCPD?

NTM

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by mountain_hare

quiet bear:

I'm just curious, but are you literate?

Not immediately leaving the building =/= A refusal to leave the building.

He could have been taking his sweet ass time. He could have been saving his work onto a disk before shutting down the computer. He could have been putting his stuff in his backpack.

Quite simply, he was leaving the building at the time the officers arrived (about 5 minutes after he was giving the warning to leave. That's quite reasonable, if you tie up whatever you are doing, save your work, and pack your bags). So no, he didn't 'refuse' to leave the building. I suggest you stop making shit up.

"Refused to leave" is no more likely to be an overstatement than "was leaving at the time the officers arrived" -- as opposed, say, to "tried to leave when the officers arrived". If that's making shit up, there's plenty of it to go around.


On another note, something in the article that had me shaking my head was this: "[Assistant Chief] Young, however, has said the officers could not have known at the time that Tabatabainejad was not a threat nor could they have been sure that he was not armed."

I think by the time he was handcuffed and prone, the question of his being armed was somewhat stale. I just can't see a defense for the last few tasings, on anyone's theory of what the cops might have believed.

Sorta like the NYC cops shooting up the car of unarmed men. Whatever story apologists want to tell about how fast it can all happen, pressure on cops, poor visibility... still, the guy who stopped to reload and then kept shooting is just fresh out of excuses.

[quiet bear]

Originally Posted by mountain_hare

I'm just curious, but are you literate?

Maybe not as well read as most here, but yes, I am literate. It should have been apparent to you that I am literate because I have written my comments down after reading the thread. I do believe that covers literacy. Unless, of course, if you were being faceteous, then never mind.

Originally Posted by mountain_hare

He could have been taking his sweet ass time. He could have been saving his work onto a disk before shutting down the computer. He could have been putting his stuff in his backpack.

Quite simply, he was leaving the building at the time the officers arrived (about 5 minutes after he was giving the warning to leave. That's quite reasonable, if you tie up whatever you are doing, save your work, and pack your bags). So no, he didn't 'refuse' to leave the building.

Hhmm...there seem to be a number of 'could have beens' in this. You wouldn't dare speculate, or make something up to make another poster look foolish, now would you? You were there, and know for a fact that he didn't refuse to leave the building, then?

Originally Posted by mountain_hare

I suggest you stop making shit up.

Checkmate.

[California Tanker]

Originally Posted by Clutch Munny

still, the guy who stopped to reload and then kept shooting is just fresh out of excuses.

On what grounds?

NTM

[JackDog]

Originally Posted by mountain_hare

He could have been taking his sweet ass time. He could have been saving his work onto a disk before shutting down the computer. He could have been putting his stuff in his backpack.

Yeah, and he could've been mixing up explosives or setting the timer on a bomb. Nobody can speculate either way and be right. The fact is that he's a middle-eastern male in his mid-20's with a bad attitude, and right now in America that's Public Enemy #1. If the campus police would've let this guy run off when they got there and a few minutes later the place blew up, we'd all rightly be calling for their heads. I don't like it, but that's the way things are right now.

And don't get me wrong, I distrust the government and hate the police as much or more than anyone here, but this guy was in the wrong. Because of my appearance and behavior I'm the most likely person on this board to get arrested (unless we have some angry arabs in their 20's ) and because of that, I mind my manners when I'm around law enforcement. To paraphrase Vincent Vega in Pulp Fiction, the guy probably didn't expect the police to react the way they did, but he had to expect a reaction. It's their fuckin' job, man. They're not gonna have a sense of humor about that shit.

[mountain_hare]

quiet:

Maybe not as well read as most here, but yes, I am literate. It should have been apparent to you that I am literate because I have written my comments down after reading the thread.

Apparently you aren't as literate as you make out, as you seem to be unable to comprehend complexities that even a 4 year old could grasp. Such as 'Not leaving immediately' does not necessarily = 'A refusal to leave'

Hhmm...there seem to be a number of 'could have beens' in this. You wouldn't dare speculate, or make something up to make another poster look foolish, now would you? You were there, and know for a fact that he didn't refuse to leave the building, then?

I love how you construct a strawman in attempt to draw attention away from the fact that you misread the article.

No, I can't disprove that he refused to leave. Irrelevant (and also a 'Shifting the Burden of Proof Fallacy').

The fact remains that merely because the student did not leave the premises immediately, is in no way an indication that he refused the request to leave. You made an absolute assertion based on questionable logic and faulty assumptions, and I called you on it.

In summary:

1. You have provided no evidence whatsoever that the student in question refused to leave the premises, as you originally claimed.

2. You drew definitive conclusions from an ambiguous statement. You assumed that merely because the student did not leave immediately, he refused to leave. I've pointed out that there are several alternative explainations as to why he did not immediately depart. Feel free to whine for 'proof', but until you put forward evidence of your own, I don't feel compelled to comply with your silly little demands.

[California Tanker]

Well, there's a good-natured and respectful response. (You do get artistic points for the large font though)

You do accept, then, that any conclusions either stating that the police were out of line, or totally within reason are unfounded, and that the only correct course of action available to us punters given the information we have available is to remain non-committal on the issue and avoid any unequivocal conclusions such as "That was un-necessary force" or "There was nothing wrong with the police action?"

NTM

[mountain_hare]

California:

You do accept, then, that any conclusions either stating that the police were out of line, or totally within reason are unfounded,

No?

[quiet bear]

mountain_hare, fact is, no one was there and saw what happened, so what I write, and what you write is opinion, with neither one carrying any more weight than the other.

I won't get into a quote contest with you. I stated my opinion. You're welcome to disagree with it. You can even write in big font and call me names and insult my intelligence, if that's what you think will make you the 'winner'.

Your anger concerns me though.

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by California Tanker

On what grounds?

NTM

On the grounds that cops are supposed to have a modicum of good judgement.

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by California Tanker

Well, there's a good-natured and respectful response.

I thought so too. It's nice when a master craftsman expresses admiration for someone else's handiwork:

Originally Posted by mountain_hare

I love how you construct a strawman