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

[yguy]

Originally Posted by mountain_hare

Silly little numbnuts. Perhaps you should research these topics a little more in depth, before spouting off. Torture can be used not only to obtain confessions, but also as a method of coercion.

So it's your position that any method used by an officer to gain compliance which results in severe physical pain consitutes torture. Have I got that right?

[Artemis Entreri]

Yeah, it seems like excessive force... but torture??? I don't really think so. It kinda devalues the word torture. But then these days being forced to stand in the corner is considered torture (ie - "stress positions ")

[mountain_hare]

yguy:

So it's your position that any method used by an officer to gain compliance which results in severe physical pain consitutes torture.

Yes. That's what both of my sources have confirmed. Are you so easily confused?

[yguy]

Originally Posted by mountain_hare

Oh look. Wikipedia also happens to agree with my definition of torture.

Well gosh, isn't that impressive.

[yguy]

Originally Posted by mountain_hare

yguy:

Yes. That's what both of my sources have confirmed.

Then you believe joint locks used to gain compliance constitute torture. Right?

[mountain_hare]

yguy:

Then you believe joint locks used to gain compliance constitute torture. Right?

No. A joint lock only causes 'severe' pain when the individual applying the lock is overzealous. A properly applied arm lock causes immobility, but very little pain. And before you ask how I know this, I spent several years practising them (and having them applied against me) in martial arts training.

However, if an arm lock is used in a way as to cause severe pain, then yes, I would consider it torture.

Note that I haven't commented on whether torture is justified or not. I've merely called it as I see it. Repeatedly shocking someone with a tool of pain is torture. Whether it is justified is another question. In this particular case study, I think it's reasonable to say that torture was not justified. The student was unarmed, outnumbered, handcuffed and whimpering on the ground. He was a thread to no-one. The repeated shocking he was subjected to was merely an act of bullying.
It was sickening, and I'm amazed that the majority of posters here don't seem to give a shit. It appears that in America, if you have an attitude, you deserve whatever comes your way.

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by California Tanker

At what stage does a person no longer have the ability to harm anyone, including himself?

I understand where you're coming from, but police are granted authority to use force to gain compliance if required. In the old days, this was done either by use of a baton, or the use of come-alongs. Today, it's the Taser, as there's less chance of injury (Not least for the cop). It's more spectacular, more painful, but less likely to cause any lasting harm.

NTM

Was he attempting to injure the officers? I haven't heard that, but I don't know all the details. I hope the allusion to his "ability" to hurt them isn't some sort of appeal to preemptive self defense.

I don't see the point about "the old days". In the old days in LA he might have been taken out back and had his arm broken. So what? The question is whether tasing the guy was more appropriate than (say) carrying him. He was an asshole and It shouldn't have come to that don't strike me as particularly relevant to that question.

[yguy]

Originally Posted by mountain_hare

yguy:

No. A joint lock only causes 'severe' pain when the individual applying the lock is overzealous. A properly applied arm lock causes immobility, but very little pain. And before you ask how I know this, I spent several years practising them (and having them applied against me) in martial arts training.

However, if an arm lock is used in a way as to cause severe pain, then yes, I would consider it torture.

And in how many of those instances were you under the influence of drugs, trying to flee the scene of a crime, or otherwise motivated so as to dictate to the one applying the hold that he employ extrordinary force to maintain control?

Note that I haven't commented on whether torture is justified or not. I've merely called it as I see it.

I doubt it. I think you know very well that torture is considered by most to be intrinsically immoral.

[mountain_hare]

Clutch:

Was he attempting to injure the officers? I haven't heard that, but I don't know all the details.

From what I understand, here are the events in chronological order:

1. The kid was warned to leave by the university staff. He gave them an attitude. No doubt he thought that they were idiots for asking a student for ID to use a university computer. Whatever. Rules are rules, and I agree that he shouldn't have been a jerk about the issue. However, being a jerk isn't a crime.

2. The UCLA police were called in. According to witness testimony, at the moment they arrived, the student had his backpack over his shoulder, and was making an effort to leave.

3. The two policemen asked him to leave, with them escorting him. He complied, offering no resistance. Again, this is according to witness testimony.

4. The two policemen grabbed him. He panicked, and yelled at them to 'get off him'. He struggled to break their grasp. In my book, that is not an act of aggression. If two people, cop or not cop, grabbed me without declaring that I was under arrest (and reading me my rights), I would sure as hell kick up a fuss. The cops aren't the law, they are enforcers of the law. They can't do whatever the hell they want.

5. While panicking, he was tased once. He was then handcuffed.

6. While handcuffed, the two policemen ordered him to get on his feet. When he did not, they REPEATEDLY tased him to force compliance. Even if he was 'causing a scene' (as some self-proclaimed telepaths love to claim), multiple tasings on an unarmed, outnumbered suspect is still unacceptable.

In my opinion, this is a cut and dried case. Quite simply:

1. The policemen inflamed the situation when they grabbed the student. Although he may have had attitude, he was WILLINGLY leaving the premises before the police arrived, and was willing to be escorted off by the cops when they showed up. Giving attitude isn't an excuse for torture, in ANY circumstance. I can't tase my (future?) wife, kids, employer or employees for 'giving attitude', so why the hell should cops be allowed to do so?

2.The policemen acted like bullies when the tortured him with repeated tasings. He was unarmed, he was handcuffed, and he was crying in pain and bewiliderment. There was no need to use pain to force compliance. It is also illogical that a stun gun should be used to force a suspect to stand up, given that a stun guns purpose is to PARALYZE the target. DUHHH.

[mountain_hare]

yguy:

And in how many of those instances were you under the influence of drugs, trying to flee the scene of a crime, or otherwise motivated so as to dictate to the one applying the hold that he employ extrordinary force to maintain control?

Relevance? The technique used to apply an armlock does not magically change if the suspect is fleeing the scene of the crime. A well trained officer can apply an arm lock with minimal pain.

I think you know very well that torture is considered by most to be intrinsically immoral.

Do I? I agree that torture is rarely justified. However, in some rare circumstances, using pain to coerce may be appropriate. For example, if a guy on crack is holding a gun, then repeated tasings may be appropriate to force him to drop the gun.

And that is exactly the issue here. Tasers aren't meant to be used to stop a snotty nosed punk from giving you lip. They are meant to be used as an alternative to deadly force. Instead of shooting a dealer on crack in the head, you tase him until he drops his weapon.

[California Tanker]

Was he attempting to injure the officers? I haven't heard that, but I don't know all the details. I hope the allusion to his "ability" to hurt them isn't some sort of appeal to preemptive self defense.

Potential for injury to anyone, not ability. (That anyone most likely being the chap in question, not the cop). The old saw about prevention being better than cure: Better to stop a struggle in its tracks with a Taser than to allow it to progress. Perhaps the struggle would end with no damage. Maybe during a struggle someone could hit his head off the corner of a desk. Which is the better option?

don't see the point about "the old days".

The point being that technology has provided an option which does not require physical manhandling with all the liabilities that attach to it.

Here's the alternative. This was an incident a week ago in Ireland.
http://dynamic.rte.ie/av/230-2190906.smil (Realplayer stream)

As you can see, the non-taser way of enforcing compliance involves being clouted about the legs and arms with big sticks. (And as baton charges go, that one was pretty mild)

Alternatively, the 'come-alongs' I mentioned above also rely on the threat of pain to enforce compliance. The ones I've been taught involve the arm, the thumb or the genitals. They work, and the level of pain used can be zero to extreme (incl breakages) depending on if the guy's coming along or not, and can be varied without shifting grip.

Now, if you want apparently un-necessary police violence, I might submit from exactly the same day the video of the LAPD chap repeatedly punching a chap in the face. http://dynamic.rte.ie/av/230-2190902.smil. That one is going to leave a mark.

So why do you think it is justified if a student who 'gives lip' is shot repeatedly with a taser?

I believe the issue was more one of perceived non-compliance, as opposed to simple verbal abuse. Now, I'm not sure about the repeatedly bit, because I can't tell from the video if the repeated shocks were warranted or not. If indeed they were unwarranted, I shall be also shouting "Down with this sort of thing"

Have you ever considering tasering them when they throw a tantrum, instead of merely locking them in their room and waiting for them to cool down?

No.. I've been belted once or twice, mind. That hurt quite a bit. For quite a while, too. And in this case, the problem the police apparently had was getting him to get into his room in the first place, be it his home, or a cell.

You struggle while in handcuffs while in the back seat of a police car?

A chap who is insistant on continuing to struggle while in handcuffs in the back of a car is quite obviously capable of damaging himself. You can do three things: Allow him to knock himself out (literally), give him knock-out drops (which I'll wager the civil-liberties people will justifiably have a fit over), or convince him that he really wants to stop acting up. Tasers are rather good at that.

Hence, there was no need to grab and manhandle him. Doing so merely generated a conflict where none existed.

That may have been the case, but since not all reports seem to match, I submit we'll have to rely on the independent investigation to try to come up with the exact sequence of events.

NTM

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by mountain_hare

Clutch:

From what I understand, here are the events in chronological order:

1. The kid was warned to leave by the university staff. He gave them an attitude. No doubt he thought that they were idiots for asking a student for ID to use a university computer. Whatever. Rules are rules, and I agree that he shouldn't have been a jerk about the issue. However, being a jerk isn't a crime.

2. The UCLA police were called in. According to witness testimony, at the moment they arrived, the student had his backpack over his shoulder, and was making an effort to leave.

3. The two policemen asked him to leave, with them escorting him. He complied, offering no resistance. Again, this is according to witness testimony.

4. The two policemen grabbed him. He panicked, and yelled at them to 'get off him'. He struggled to break their grasp. In my book, that is not an act of aggression. If two people, cop or not cop, grabbed me without declaring that I was under arrest (and reading me my rights), I would sure as hell kick up a fuss. The cops aren't the law, they are enforcers of the law. They can't do whatever the hell they want.

5. While panicking, he was tased once. He was then handcuffed.

6. While handcuffed, the two policemen ordered him to get on his feet. When he did not, they REPEATEDLY tased him to force compliance. Even if he was 'causing a scene' (as some self-proclaimed telepaths love to claim), multiple tasings on an unarmed, outnumbered suspect is still unacceptable.

In my opinion, this is a cut and dried case. Quite simply:

1. The policemen inflamed the situation when they grabbed the student. Although he may have had attitude, he was WILLINGLY leaving the premises before the police arrived, and was willing to be escorted off by the cops when they showed up. Giving attitude isn't an excuse for torture, in ANY circumstance. I can't tase my (future?) wife, kids, employer or employees for 'giving attitude', so why the hell should cops be allowed to do so?

2.The policemen acted like bullies when the tortured him with repeated tasings. He was unarmed, he was handcuffed, and he was crying in pain and bewiliderment. There was no need to use pain to force compliance. It is also illogical that a stun gun should be used to force a suspect to stand up, given that a stun guns purpose is to PARALYZE the target. DUHHH.

The only thing I have a question about, was he singled out for an ID request due to his ethnic background? Were other students asked for their IDs at the time? Bottom line the kid was leaving. UCLA I smell a lawsuit!

[yguy]

Originally Posted by mountain_hare

yguy:

Relevance? The technique used to apply an armlock does not magically change if the suspect is fleeing the scene of the crime. A well trained officer can apply an arm lock with minimal pain.

Sure he can, if the subject is sufficiently compliant. If not, the officer may have to break his arm. Would you consider that inflicting severe pain?

Tasers aren't meant to be used to stop a snotty nosed punk from giving you lip.

To be sure...and neither has that been cited as a justification for the tazering, AFAIK.

I agree that torture is rarely justified. However, in some rare circumstances, using pain to coerce may be appropriate. For example, if a guy on crack is holding a gun, then repeated tasings may be appropriate to force him to drop the gun.

That's all very well, but if there is any law or court decision which affirms the moral neutrality of torture in such situations, I'm unaware of it. Your definition, while convenient to the emotional component of your argument, is misapplied here.

[mountain_hare]

California:

Potential for injury to anyone, not ability. (That anyone most likely being the chap in question, not the cop).

According to eyewitness testimony, there was no 'potential for injury', because the student was willing to leave the campus. There was only 'potential for injury' when the police grabbed him. If the police hadn't manhandled him in the first place, there would have been no chance of 'potential for injury'.

The old saw about prevention being better than cure: Better to stop a struggle in its tracks with a Taser than to allow it to progress.

1. No 'struggle' would have occurred in the first place if the officers had have been diplomatic, instead of resorting to force.

2. There are numerous other ways of dealing with a struggling individual. They could have just released him, as he was no threat to the community, and was only 'struggling' because he was being groped by law enforcement.

If they were really desperate to 'lay down the law', an arm lock could have sufficed. After all, it was two rather well built, trained police officers vs. one weedy student.

Have you ever considering tasering them when they throw a tantrum, instead of merely locking them in their room and waiting for them to cool down?

No.. I've been belted once or twice, mind. That hurt quite a bit. For quite a while, too. And in this case, the problem the police apparently had was getting him to get into his room in the first place, be it his home, or a cell.

Why don't you advocate the tasering of an unruly child to force compliance? After all, an unruly child can also 'fall and hit their head'. Shouldn't one 'prevent a struggle' before allowing it to get out of hand? Surely prevention is better than a cure?

I have an idea. The next time your child acts up, restrain him with rope. And when he struggles against his bonds, repeatedly shock him. Booyah!

A chap who is insistant on continuing to struggle while in handcuffs in the back of a car is quite obviously capable of damaging himself.

No, in the vast majority of circumstances, he is not. Individuals (including children) throw tantrums all the time, and very rarely come to any injury. I fail to see how continued tasing helps the matter, given that such actions can lead to injury. In fact, it is stressed even by the UCLA police department that one should give careful consideration before tasing someone who is in handcuffs.

[wildernesse]

Tasers are interesting tools. Because of their non-lethal status (despite the deaths of people who have been tasered, I don't know that they are classified as less-lethal), police often appear to be less careful with their use. If the police had been using batons instead of tasers, would you think of the situation differently? Although I probably would initially, I don't think that my reasoning is good.

[mountain_hare]

wilder, 'restraint' is an alien word to many cops. They seem to think that their job is no longer to 'protect and serve', but to open up a can of whoop ass on anyone who dares question them.

They have tasers. They have batons. They have guns. They have shiny badges. The public generally do not. This imbalance gives them a rush of power, which they think they have the right to use in any heated situation. I wouldn't have been surprised if these cops had have pulled out the batons.

What the cops need to learn is how to deal with people like human beings, instead of animals. Perhaps the most effective weapon a cop has is their authority, and calm words of reason. The cops in this instance did not resort to reason. They merely went straight to being grabby, and then using a taser multiple times, on someone who was handcuffed.

This is exactly why I think tasers should be outlawed. Tasers are seen as 'non-lethal tools'. As a result, the cops use them as an 'easy way out' in situations where they want to force compliance. Instead of ignoring the target, reasoning with the target, or restraining the target without the use of severe pain, they merely jump straight to the taser or the pepper spray.

It's the equivalent of hitting your child, without trying other non-violent methods first (eg. reasoning, withdrawal of privileges, time out). Because these alternatives require far more effort than pulling the trigger.


Don't count on these cops being disciplined. Not only is the police force like a cult (always protecting its own members), the public will not do jack. The people of America are sheep. "Oh, they are cops. They must have been in the right. The kid should have just bent over for an ass reaming. Yes sir, no sir, three bags full sir."

Just so everyone here is aware, I'm Australian. I'm an outsider looking into your country. And I'm just baffled as to how so many Americans can just accept this shit. I guess it's similiar to police brutality in China. The Chinese are so used to abuse perpetrated by the cops, they just accept it as part of everyday life.

[yguy]

Originally Posted by mountain_hare

California:

According to eyewitness testimony, there was no 'potential for injury', because the student was willing to leave the campus. There was only 'potential for injury' when the police grabbed him. If the police hadn't manhandled him in the first place, there would have been no chance of 'potential for injury'.

Your MSNBC link does not support the bolded claims.

Officers were escorting Tabatabainejad out of the computer lab when the trouble started, according to the Daily Bruin. One of the officers placed a hand on one of his arms, to which the student objected.

Unless one is prepared to accept uncritically the notion that the officer laid a hand on him for no good reason, it seems entirely possible that the kid did something to indicate that he would not leave the building.

1. No 'struggle' would have occurred in the first place if the officers had have been diplomatic, instead of resorting to force.

2. There are numerous other ways of dealing with a struggling individual. They could have just released him, as he was no threat to the community, and was only 'struggling' because he was being groped by law enforcement.

None of this can be reliably inferred from any evidence you have presented.

Why don't you advocate the tasering of an unruly child to force compliance?

Congratulations on having asked one of the most magnificently airheaded questions I've ever seen.

[Freddy]

I decided to research this incident. I watched the video again.
First, the student is a Native born American citizen of Iranian descent.
Second, I read all the stories I could find on the incident finding numerous student/graduate eye witnesses backed the student's story.
Third, from those witnesses it is clear the student was leaving the library on his own. None of them backed the police version.
Fourth, before 11:00 PM the Campus Police do not ask for IDs.
Fifth, no other student said they were asked for an ID.
Sixth, several witnesses said they were threatened with being tasered.

I emailed the President of UCLA and told him in civil terms how I felt about the incident. Then I told him I hope the courts show him how wrong his Campus Police were.

[erimir]

I think the use of the tasers was not justified.

If they had whipped out the nightsticks and popped him in the head a couple times, I don't think anyone would be defending the police, but because it was a taser, it's somehow ok to brutalize someone unarmed and not behaving violently just to get them to leave the premises.

They could have just dragged him, or carried him out. Or if they had just continued to escort him out without grabbing him (presumably if he was already leaving with them, there's no reason to grab him), then nothing bad would have happened.

Obviously, the student behaved stupidly, but the fact that he was behaving stupidly doesn't justify the actions of the police.

[TomJoe]

Originally Posted by wildernesse

If the police had been using batons instead of tasers, would you think of the situation differently?

I would think of the situation differently if they had been using guns, as opposed to batons.

What's your point? They used tasers, not batons, not guns, not down-stuffed pillows either.

[wildernesse]

Whacking a handcuffed person with a baton seems unnecessary to me and more violent than the use of a taser, although I actually think that these are equivalent tools.

[mountain_hare]

yguy:

Your MSNBC link does not support the bolded claims.

I posted more than one source.

Review my post here:
http://www.freethought-forum.com/for...0&postcount=16

The source claim which points out that the student was leaving the premises at the moment the police arrived:

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

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.

The CSOs left, returning minutes later, and police officers arrived to escort the student out. By this time the student had begun to walk toward the door with his backpack when an officer approached him and grabbed his arm, at which point the student told the officer to let him go. A second officer then approached the student as well.

erimir:

Obviously, the student behaved stupidly, but the fact that he was behaving stupidly doesn't justify the actions of the police.

Yeah. If we tased everyone who was 'behaving stupidly', you would probably have to tase 90% of the population.

[California Tanker]

If we tased everyone who was 'behaving stupidly', you would probably have to tase 90% of the population.

There's a thought. Would that necessarily be a bad thing?

NTM

[erimir]

Originally Posted by California Tanker

There's a thought. Would that necessarily be a bad thing?

If you were tased multiple times as a result, it might be debatable.

But I think actually, I'm gonna go with yes, it would be a bad thing.

[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.

NTM