UCLA student tasered by police.

[Fenghuang]

One of the officers in the video also threatened to taser another student who repeatedly demanded the badge numbers of the officers involved.  That is absurd.

 

At least some of the officers also tried claiming that Tabatabainejad was inciting the other students to resist the officers.  There's certainly no evidence of that in the video at any point, and a bunch of students have also come forward to dispute the officers' claims that Tabatabainejad incited resistance at any point.

 

You gotta be pretty bright to try B.S.ing your way out of something with a video camera and about a hundred hostile witnesses present to create a record of the event.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Looks like somebody's looking to be tasered.

[Stewdawg24]

This was a receipie for diaster for the University Police before they stepped foot into the library. Let's look at the ingreditents.

 

1. 1 loud-mouthed student without ID

2. a heaping portion of liberal students who are looking to re-create the 60's

3. 3 parts "square badge" lacking training and experience

4. and the main ingredient 1 schmuck with camera.

 

From what I can see in the video this Student was casuing a disturbence in the library when asked to provide ID and then asked to leave. The moment he resisted the situation was lost for the cops. I'm not saying that it was approriate to use the tazer because I wasn't there and don't know what the cops saw. However, let's say they didn't use the tazer but instead physically removed him from the library. Does anyone think this wouldn't have produced the same reaction from him and the other Students? In fact, given his reaction when they grabbed his arm it may have been safer to tazer him then allow him to resist arrest and potentially injure one the police officers or himself further. Of course, had tht happened it would have been another case of police brutatlity.....and made for a much better video.

Edited November 19, 2006 by Stewdawg24

[Calax]

I just went through some of the other videos on Youtube and found that they had a rally about this. At the rally they say some... interesting things.

[metadigital]

This was a receipie for diaster for the University Police before they stepped foot into the library.  Let's look at the ingreditents.

 

1.  1 loud-mouthed student without ID

2.  a heaping portion of liberal students who are looking to re-create the 60's

3.  3 parts "square badge" lacking training and experience

4.  and the main ingredient 1 schmuck with camera.

 

From what I can see in the video this Student was casuing a disturbence in the library when asked to provide ID and then asked to leave.  The moment he resisted the situation was lost for the cops.  I'm not saying that it was approriate to use the tazer because I wasn't there and don't know what the cops saw.  However, let's say they didn't use the tazer but instead physically removed him from the library.  Does anyone think this wouldn't have produced the same reaction from him and the other Students?  In fact, given his reaction when they grabbed his arm it may have been safer to tazer him then allow him to resist arrest and potentially injure one the police officers or himself further.  Of course, had tht happened it would have been another case of police brutatlity.....and made for a much better video.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think the only comment to make is that the police did not act properly, whether because of insufficient training or whatever.

 

Crowd control is not easy, doesn't mean that law enforcement should use violence as a first option.

[Laozi]

When you get older those who tazer dumb college kids might become your heroes

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's a pretty stupid statement.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

How so?

[Deraldin]

When you get older those who tazer dumb college kids might become your heroes

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's a pretty stupid statement.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How so?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm (soon to be) a college kid and those who tazer dumb college kids are already my heroes. Someone has to knock some sense into people. <_<

[Sand]

When you get older those who tazer dumb college kids might become your heroes

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's a pretty stupid statement.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

How so?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Can we say Rodney King? I know you can.

[Laozi]

I don't really see the comparison.

 

 

I wonder if anyone here has been a victim of "police violence" or has had a run-in with police?

Edited November 19, 2006 by Laozi

[metadigital]

That would be telling.

[LadyCrimson]

Based on that video, for me it's hard to say if the first taser was really abusive or not. Yelling and screaming and all that makes it hard to be objective, as well, since such brings up emotive responses.

 

But the subsequent taserings certainly seem highly unneccesary to me. When someone is in handcuffs and can't fight back/isn't a physical danger; well to me that's abuse of power. They could have dragged or carried him out or something. It wouldn't have "looked" any worse to those watching.

 

I wonder if anyone here has been a victim of "police violence" or has had a run-in with police?

Yes, once, when I was a teen. I won't say why. It wasn't for illegal activity tho.

[~Di]

First, there are tens of millions of police officers in America. The number of incidents of actual brutality by officers is a small fraction of the literally billions of interactions between police and citizens on an annual basis. When abuse or perceived abuse does happen, the officer in question is investigated, and if the evidence supports an indictment, he/she stands trial just like every other citizen.

 

Second, I resent the hell out of people using this as an excuse to dog America as a whole. Again. There are plenty of instances of police brutality in Europe and around the globe to point fingers at if y'all want to be that shallow and petty. Including a certain dead Arab in the UK with uncountable bullets in his head because, oops, the UK cops thought he might be a terrorist. So please, spare me your bigotry.

 

Third, university "police" officers are normally not official sworn police officers. They are usually security forces not governmentally trained. Some universities may have rotating officers from the local police forces as security, especially large campuses like UCLA, but certainly they are the exception rather than the rule.

 

Forth, I'd have more sympathy if the kid wasn't deliberately provoking and acting the fool. I've seen the same type of behavior from folks chaining themselves to trees on other people's property, or blockading a business because they want to exercise their newly-discovered power of protest at the expense of other people's rights and property. This wasn't the case here, but it provides a lesson that when acting like an arrogant bodily orifice in public, one might run across yet another arrogant bodily orifice with more power than you. A conflict between arrogant bodily orifices does not make me shed crocodile tears for either side.

 

The security officers in question will no doubt suffer for their lapse in judgement. The poor, aggrieved fool will no doubt sue the university for millions. Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.

[LadyCrimson]

"arrogant bodily orifices"

 

...classic, Di, classic. :D

 

Adrenline, possible inexperience, fear of possible mobs/being surrounded...all that can play a role. And while I think the repeated taserings were unncessary and probably should have some disciplinary action against the officers in question, I agree that with the info known, I don't have too much sympathy in this case for the kid, either.

 

It's not an excuse for the officers latter reactions, but imo Di has a point. There is often blame on both sides.

[Fenghuang]

A conflict between arrogant bodily orifices

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Hott.

 

Also, I've talked to a friend I've known since I was six who now goes to UCLA, and he says that recently the bulk of the UC Police left because they were overworked, paid just a smidgen above minimum wage, and treated like crap by everyone they interacted with, students and teachers alike. Apparently they had fliers up for awhile, pleading for a pay increase if the student body wanted a decent on-campus police force, but it didn't fly. So basically the only people who stayed on the force were the power hungry jerks who get off on pushing people around. Oh, and they're even more overworked than they were before.

Edited November 19, 2006 by Fenghuang

[Sand]

Being overworked does not give them a right to abuse their power. You either get a new job somewhere else or you convince your employer, one way or another, to hire more people.

[Hurlshort]

Being overworked does not give them a right to abuse their power.  You either get a new job somewhere else or you convince your employer, one way or another, to hire more people.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Do you suggest tasering them?

[~Di]

Only one side of the story is out. I do know that officers are not going to try to drag a kicking, resisting suspect down a staircase because doing so is a recipe for getting everyone injured.

 

The kid was deliberately provoking everyone involved, and apparently was screeching at the gathering crowd trying to incite a riot. I realize we are all judgmental know-it-alls (myself included!), but perhaps we should wait for the inclusive investigation of both sides before we throw these security guards into the pit of starving hounds, m'kay?

 

And Lady Crimson, I wouldn't have to be so creative with my descriptions if y'all weren't so picky about the vernacular around here.

[Sand]

Only one side of the story is out.  I do know that officers are not going to try to drag a kicking, resisting suspect down a staircase because doing so is a recipe for getting everyone injured.

 

The kid was deliberately provoking everyone involved, and apparently was screeching at the gathering crowd trying to incite a riot.  I realize we are all judgmental know-it-alls (myself included!), but perhaps we should wait for the inclusive investigation of both sides before we throw these security guards into the pit of starving hounds, m'kay?

 

And Lady Crimson, I wouldn't have to be so creative with my descriptions if y'all weren't so picky about the vernacular around here.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

True enough, Di, but I still think that the officers should have shown more restraint. Multiple taserings was not necessary.

[Fenghuang]

Being overworked does not give them a right to abuse their power.  You either get a new job somewhere else or you convince your employer, one way or another, to hire more people.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

It's like you skipped the bulk of my post and only focused on the part about being overworked.

 

 

Being overworked does not give them a right to abuse their power.  You either get a new job somewhere else or you convince your employer, one way or another, to hire more people.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Do you suggest tasering them?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I know I do.

[Calax]

I would at least pull the officer's while the investigation was under way.

[Fenghuang]

Those four officers are half of the force!

[J.E. Sawyer]

The kid was deliberately provoking everyone involved, and apparently was screeching at the gathering crowd trying to incite a riot.

There's certainly no video evidence of that and the UCLA Daily Bruin reported that student witnesses denied Tabatabainejad was inciting anyone.

 

http://dailybruin.com/news/articles.asp?id=38960

[Calax]

from the youtube video he seemed compliant... until he got zapped.

[J.E. Sawyer]

from the youtube video he seemed compliant... until he got zapped.

A number of students have said that he was very disruptive prior to the video starting, but the multiple tazing response was still incredibly asinine. Three+ officers can't take a limp, tazed, handcuffed skinny dude out of the building? After the first tazing, it's obvious that the student witnesses are becoming incredibly agitated from the tazing, the officers' shouting, and Tabatabainejad's screams. He also shouted at one point in the video after the first tazing, "I have a medical condition!" This is vague and probably B.S., but why would you risk tazing him again considering all of the potential for disaster from him and from alarmed, hostile witnesses?

 

Personally, I think Tabatabainejad was being a shouty dum-dum. That doesn't excuse the officers for escalating the situation. That's really all the tazing did, and it seemed clear that's all it was going to do after the first or second jolt.

[Pop]

The kid was deliberately provoking everyone involved, and apparently was screeching at the gathering crowd trying to incite a riot.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There's certainly no video evidence of that and the UCLA Daily Bruin reported that student witnesses denied Tabatabainejad was inciting anyone.

 

http://dailybruin.com/news/articles.asp?id=38960

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Indeed, and even if that was the case, cops aren't supposed to use that kind of force on people who only verbally provoke. That's the whole point. I would hope people would have thicker skin than that.

 

Force 101:

1. The goal of level one force is to simply persuade someone to do something. The means to achieve this is verbal dialogue (e.g., advice, warnings, requests, and orders). An officer who tells someone to stay in his vehicle, warns a person to take his hands out of his pockets, or orders an individual not to move is using level one force. (5) Purely verbal in nature, it does not involve any hands-on application.

 

2. The goal of level two force is to achieve compliance and involves actual physical contact, including physically escorting or carrying someone from point A to point B. An officer who takes someone by the arm, escorting him to a different location, or carries a demonstrator from one place to another is using level two force. For example, if an individual interferes with a crime scene and refuses an officer's orders to stay back, the officer would be justified in escalating the force to level two and physically escorting the person away from the scene.

 

3. The goals of level three force are compliance and control using compression techniques or control devices. Compression techniques include wrist locks, arm bars, physical control holds, and the use of pressure point control tactics. Control devices consist of such tools as handcuffs, restraints, pepper spray, canines, Tasers, and stun guns. For example, an individual escorted at the level two stage suddenly starts resisting efforts to take him away. At this point, the escorting officer now is justified in increasing the level of force used to level three to get the subject to comply and to bring him under control. Using any of the techniques or devices available in level three is acceptable.

 

4. The goal of level four force is self-defense and can include personal and impact weapons. Officers frequently are assaulted, so, to defend themselves and prevent or neutralize such attacks, they resort to personal weapons (e.g., hands, fists, and feet) to hit or kick. Or, they can use impact weapons, such as batons, flashlights, and kinetic energy projectiles (e.g., shotguns that fire beanbag rounds or rubber bullets). In the level two example, if the individual starts hitting and kicking the officer, the officer would be justified in using any of the tools listed in level four to defend himself.

 

5. Last, the goal of level five force is to stop someone. To accomplish this, officers can employ deadly force, which includes the use of a firearm, another deadly weapon, or a roadblock. All of these forms of force are potentially lethal. If the escorted individual in the level two stage grabs the officer's baton and starts striking him, or he moves toward the officer preparing to strike him, in this case, the officer would be justified in escalating to level five and using deadly force to stop the imminent threat. Or, if the demonstrator in level two manages to obtain a gun or knife and attacks or is about to attack the officer, the use of deadly force would be justified.

The situation called for level 2 force, and they used level 3 force. We call that "excessive force" and it's a problem. Even if in this case the situation had escalated to level 3, tasers are to be used once, twice if the subject is resilient or tweaking, which was not the case. This is serious ****.

Edited November 20, 2006 by Pop

[Aram]

The tazer was designed as a non-lethal alternative to deadly force. The fact that it has become a compliance-tool, something of an electronic bullwhip, is despicable. It's basicly torture, and using it to get a handcuffed suspect to stand up and walk for you should be highly illegal.