Campus Cops = Keystone Cops

1. I’ve seen things like this at nearly half a dozen campuses now — the campus-affiliated police department uses excessive force, fails to pursue violent offenders, fails to collect readily available evidence, or otherwise gives the impresion of being incompetent. These are *real* police officers, not private security guards, so why does their level of professionalism seem to be so much lower than officers in neighboring (non-academic) precincts? Perhaps my anecdotal impressions are misleading, but I would nearly always rather have a city cop near me than a campus cop — even though they often work for the same department!

2. Tasers are less-lethal weapons. Their use should be limited to situations where, absent a Taser, officers would be justified in using deadly force. All too often, they are treated as convenient torture (pain-infliction) devices in order to gain “compliance” rather than tools for police to defend themselves or others from the imminent threat of serious bodily harm. If UCLA is in control of these officers (unclear from the article), they need to train them accordingly and hold them accountable for misuse of this less-lethal weapon.

Jeff, Assistant Professor, at 6:45 am EST on November 17, 2006

reply to BD

BD, This story did not involve campus protesters. Therefore, I am a tad confused as to your analysis of it.

In the US, people are generally free to make statements to the press. The public is free to decide whether to believe them or not. I am sorry that this causes you pain, but, in the US, anyone gets to be a victim. Cops, criminals, and politicians get to do it, and people like it. Sometimes innocent people get to do it, too. If you are interested in modifying the constitution, drop me a line.

Now, if this victim decides to sue (as people can under 42 U.S.C. 1983 or state law) her allegations will be subject to proof and cross-examination. Likewise, the defendants will be able to assert a number of defenses namely qualified immunity. But this has not happened yet. They might even hire a court reporter, who will, in turn, misspell everything.

However, the defense of “qualified immunity” is not available, in cases where the police are simply overburdened and they must “watch over” 60,000 other people who they must serve.

While I respect your experience as a “court reporter” most of the time one needs to be a lawyer to actually know what is going on. (Also, your profession, with its constant – and perhaps deliberate — misspelling is a source annoyance to me.) If you would like to address “criminal justice” more directly, I would urge you to go to law school.

I should not, BD, that someone who criticized a government institution by claiming it violated someone’s constitutional rights is under no moral or logical obligation to either join the police or offer a better solution. Therefore, unless you wish to change the constitution (an idea I am open to entertaining), we must take any claims of a constitutional injury seriously without regard to a lack of alternatives.

Larry, at 7:45 am EST on November 17, 2006

The Rules

“The rules about ID are well known,” says the chancellor. Apparently, random ID sweeps are part of regular policy at UCLA. And here I thought that in the US one does not have to produce papers for any under-educated, over-aggressive goon in a uniform who decides he doesn’t like your looks. This is shameful, wanton abuse of power. It also appears to be assault. I presume the local DA will be filing charges.

Joseph Duemer, Professor at Clarkson University, at 8:10 am EST on November 17, 2006

Use restraint

There’s too much we don’t know about the student and the circumstances to judge on one incident.

If it is true that the student who was asked to leave actually went limp when officers tried to touch him in order to escort him out, surely they could have dragged or carried him out instead of using a Taser to make him stand and walk out. As far as I know, officers usually carry off non-violent protestors who sit in front of abortion clinics and things like that, so why not do that here?

Perhaps the student went limp after shouting “don’t touch me.” Was there a need to touch him to make him leave? If not, I wonder why the officers didn’t simply escort him by walking closely to him (with hands on Tasers in case he tried anything). It would have made the situation better for both the police and the student — treating him in a civilized manner, and then issuing some kind of stern warnings after they exited the building.

If this guy was a repeat offender, being in the library on several occasions without ID and with an arrogant attitude about breaking the rules, then I can understand why the police felt frustrated enough to use force. I don’t know if it’s justified, but I can understand their decision if that was the case.

Tolana, at 8:26 am EST on November 17, 2006

Doesn’t this article refer to protestors?

Larry,Normally I like your posts. However, I don’t believe that BD deserved the abuse you heaped. Where, for example, did he state that critics should join the police force or offer a better solution? He simply asked if they had offered to help them become better.

I also don’t see why his reference to protestors puzzles you. The article refers to protests at least three times and, to me at least, clearly has the student protests as a sub topic of the article. On the other hand I am puzzled by your reference to free speech. I may have misread but I don’t see BD making any statement questioning anyone’s right to protest or complain. Stating that someone shouldn’t complain is not the same as someone stating they have no right to.

As a lawyer myself, I am frankly puzzled by your statement that only a lawyer can understand “what’s going on.” For one thing, I can think of several lawyers who would be clueless in court and several court officers and PL’s who could teach at a top notch school. I worked for Pete Rodino a long time ago and his chief aid on the House Judicial Committee was not a lawyer, but boy, did he know his stuff! Heck, I could refer you to a few accountant-FBI agents who are pretty good at understanding “what’s going on". Larry, I love my work, I am proud of my profession but I guess I am not as convinced as you are about the magic that is imparted upon passing the bar, nor of the exclusivity of that knowledge to the profession.

Brad, at 9:50 am EST on November 17, 2006

I agree with J. Duemer that ULCA should use this as a reason to get rid of any program that encourages campus police to make rounds checking everyone’s ID. If the library is restricted to students, an ID could be required to enter; there is no reason for police to check it again.

Many colleges have similar “ID on demand” policies that claim the campus police have the authority to ask for ID at any time, but this incident is the first time I have heard of police making sweeps to check ID.

M.C., at 9:50 am EST on November 17, 2006

Student Should Have Stood Up

In California it is a misdemeanor to fail to follow the lawful order of a police officer. The student decided to disobey the lawful command to stand up. He suffered the consequences. Don’t forget the forum where this took place. Most college campuses have an anti-establishment aura flowing through them. With the backlash against the Federal government shown in the most recent elections, it is clear that the student who was tased, as well as the witnesses, feel emboldened by those results. The election was another way to show disrespect for authority, as they see it. This sort of anti-establishment thinking can easily spread to every day occurences, as seen here. The guy should have complied. End of story.

Craig C, political pundit at http://blogresponder.blogspot.com, at 10:01 am EST on November 17, 2006

Joseph Duemer

Sorry prof, but you are way off base. The rules are meant to make the users of the library secure. They are not in violation of the constitution. The UCLA campus has rules about being ID’d after certain hours, in certain areas. The student decided to push the envelope, and suffered the consequences. The student has no right to refuse the lawful order of a police officer. If UCLA wants to change the rules, and allow rapists and murderers onto the campus to make people feel “secure in their persons” then so be it. But for now, the rules are the rules.

Craig C, political pundit at http://blogresponder.blogspot.com, at 11:06 am EST on November 17, 2006

consolidated replies

Tom, I am not sure what you are talking about. If anything, I was criticizing court reporters in general, who have caused me great annoyance. Along those lines, I do not think that being a court reporter qualifies someone to opine on the state of legal process, or criminal justice.

My use of quotation marks was to denote terms of art (as in the case of “qualified immunity”) or philosophical models that do not necessarily mean that our society has every reached. Typical examples are “criminal justice” or “democracy.” I use the quotes so that others know that I don’t necessarily think that our treatment of criminal in the criminal justice system is really “just” but I wish to leave those issues for another day.

BD, I am certainly not offering to help the police do anything. They get paid to do what they do. However, since they are bound by the constitution, they should not violate anyone’s constitutional rights. If they deliberately do so (and I am not saying that happened here), they have civil exposure under 1983. Finally, a fifth year student probably has a right to be in the library. (Also, under many circumstances, non-students have a right to be in a school library without ID, but I am not going to address that issue.)

Tolanda, Ironically, if he was a “repeat offender” then the police would know that he was a student. There is also no crime in being arrogant. In fact, many consider it a strength.

Brad, BD’s had two posts where he insinuated that I should join the police force. He said “For that matter — are critics of campus police, offering to help them become better? That is, if they are so much smarter and stronger ..” and “re you offering to help the UCLA cops, sweep the UCLA libraries for urine-soaked vagrants, drunks, violent ex-felons” Also, ex-felons are free to use libraries. BD’s reference to free speech occurs in his sentence “This is just another example of what a mess, the public square is today. One self-annointed victim, throwing a temper tantrum that will probably result in an investigation that will cost several hundreds of thousands of dollars.” He seems to be arguing that people should not be able to anoint themselves as victims. No protests have taken place yet.

Finally, Brad, the reason that I think that lawyers are the only ones who know what is going on, is that non-lawyers generally refuse to actually devote the time or intellectual energy to understanding anything. For example, since you and I both all the opinions from the SCOTUS, we might disagree as to what they mean, but we won’t find ourselves jumping to political conclusions based on some soundbite that made it to TV. I have never met a non-lawyer that would thinks that it is immoral (as most lawyers I know do) to speak of a court’s decision without reading it. The same goes for trials: despite their public nature, most of the time, someone who views just part of it in isolation has no idea what is going on.

Larry, at 11:10 am EST on November 17, 2006

America & Guns

I very recently had this debate after researching something about a very insensitive re-action from my all white co-workers about shooting a African American female with a Tazer Gun who out of fear reacted wrongly to a local traffic cops duties…twice they shot her and she was in tears…crying and shaking.; I was very hurt and this too can be found on YouTube. They(my co-workers) were laughing about how she was crying and shaking and of course ready to show all other non minorities the power of the law enforcement officer and their new found weapon of choice to use on non criminally incline people….the very lethal ‘Tazer’.

I feel that people who are involved in law enforcement toting this weapon need to be restrained quickly before more and more cases already documented in the courts becomes a epidemic in the USA. I base my point of view on the fact that my dad was a Chicago Cop for 40 years and never once shot his gun and my brother was a Chicago Cop who quit the job after 15 years because of concerns that everybody toting a lethal weapon was not capable of handling the power you have in your hand and for that matter the badge too. Moreover the issue of America with its entire race issues and factor in a salty majority and an even saltier group of minorities who out of fear react improperly when these honest working want to be respected cops walk up too you. Furthermore the issue of guns being so common today in grammar schools, high schools and colleges plus in general the American lifestyle of narcotics and such… I understand what law enforcement is faced with.

However all the above is par for the course of being a cop…..and as my dear ole dad always told me…. “Son…a gun only makes you extra tough”… “It’s not how to solve a problem” hence Dad never shot anybody as an African American flatfoot on the street in a major urban city. Fast forward and technology created the Tazer Gun…60,000 volts of living hell….people are dying from this monster weapon, heart attacks happen after being shot, babies in the wound die after a shot from the Tazer, people go onto shock and their bodies react shutting down organs……60,000 volts…that’s a lot of electricity…have you ever been shocked from a 120 volt household circuit let along 100 times more. Who invented this weapon…why are their allowing law enforcement to carry it….why aren’t we trying to be like English Bobbies…and tote no lethal weapons… even the Houston Cops have a mandate to have their weapons sealed in a hostler that requires a officer will have to work to release it because gun toting is a problem there. At what point did American Police become ‘Judge Dred’ and executions take place on the spot, after being judged ….by one not of your peers, no trail by jury…nothing….just some angry uneducated person black or white with a hard on for a non criminal offence, some tax paying America citizen and for that matter a striving to become a American citizen. On a College Campus too….I guess this says tons about the current American Leadership….it sucks.

Greg Harris, at 11:10 am EST on November 17, 2006

Shock and Anger...

Yes the campus used excessive force. Yes, they should never use a taser unless they are also willing to use a gun. The taser is the last step before using a gun... but this is PRIVATE property. There is a different standard for asking for and providing IDs when you are on private property. Folks that decide it’s worth taking a stand and refusing to corporate with police by providing their ID should also realize that they also open the door to police using ALL their power to enforce the rules. If you want to break the rules, then be willing to pay the price, just don’t whine when the price is higher than you anticipated.

Blue

Blue, at 11:15 am EST on November 17, 2006

UCLA incident

The underlying sentiment here , unfortunately is of blatant racism and the phobias Americans have grown accustomed to of Middle easterners and terror. The victims name sounds almost like Amadinijad or other Arab sounding names that Americans have become conditioned and familiarized with to connotate with a phantom enemy. Now with African Americans ,Muslims and their names are becoming normalized with negative impressions and predjustice. It is plain and simple and easy for some to deny , yet the denial is noticeable.Muslims will inhabit this nation in great numbers eventually and will seek recognition , this is not the way to greet their voices.

Alan D Enstoss, owner at Paint concern, at 11:15 am EST on November 17, 2006

To call the students “protestors” is to imply that the protest was organized. BD seems to be saying (at least that was my reading) that students who engage in an organized, non-violent protests should expect to be tased. Yes, in a police state, they might expect such treatment, but surely not on a college campus.

It is very clear that this was not an organized protest; students reacted to what they saw as an unacceptable use of force. BD’s comment deserves analysis for his manipulative use of language to bolster his argument.

GPD, at 11:15 am EST on November 17, 2006

What a mess...

I just looked up the physical effects of Tasers and sure enough, temporary paralysis is at the top of the list. It’s not clear to me from the video footage if the student was refusing to get to his feet or if he was physically unable to do so, but it is crystal-clear that at least one of the times that officers shocked the student, he was already standing — his feet went flying up into the air and he fell. If UCLA has any hope of not getting sued six ways to Sunday, it should start an independent investigation asap (and even then, it’s hard to imagine that this won’t wind up in court).

I find it interesting that the old “anti-establishment” idea re: college campuses is still out there — I’ve attended and taught at numerous schools all over the country and I’ve yet to land on a campus that I’d describe as even remotely liberal. As for the students feeling “emboldened” by recent election results, please — the only figures who appear “emboldened” on the video footage are the campus security officers. The students, as they first sit quietly and then begin to gather as they realize that something drastic is happening, appear by turns frightened, horrified, and utterly disbelieving that this is unfolding in front of them. I’d be surprised if this goes away any time soon.

G., at 11:15 am EST on November 17, 2006

Read The TV Station Account

If you go to the TV station account of the incident, and read what really happened, it all looks quite different than what has been said on this forum. The student clearly attempted to foment the situation.

http://www.nbc4.tv/news/10325914/detail.html

Craig C, political pundit at http://blogresponder.blogspot.com, at 11:16 am EST on November 17, 2006

question for Craig

Craig, I am not sure which statute you are referring to. Since you are a political pundit, I am sure that you can provide me with the statute you referred to.

“Failure to follow lawful order” statutes are rarely enforced (except in the context of a plea bargain) because there are numerous constitutional issues involved. It also requires that the state prove that the order was lawful. Perhaps you are referring to Penal Code section 726, which is a failure to disperse statute, but that requires “That the scene in question was the place of a riot or of a rout or of an unlawful assembly; that the petitioners, along with the other persons present, had been lawfully warned to disperse; and that the petitioners heard the warning and failed to disperse.” In re Wagner, 119 Cal.App.3d 90 (1981)

Larry, at 11:20 am EST on November 17, 2006

Yes Sir, Craig C. The student is guilty of insubordination. Do not people know that the police are authoritative figures that know — they know and what they know is absolute and final authoritative knowledge. They know the student failed to listen to their command. So, guilty, guilty as charged..BUZZZZZZZZZ!!!!!!!!! No questions asked. All those that do not see it their way, well, they are guilty too.

My country... Sweet land of liberty...of thee I sing....

We are all thinking and making judgements and decisions based on the lower part of the triangle...the base. No longer, as the founding fathers intended, are we using the upper level where all is holisted and interconnected. What we do to the other, we do to ourselves. Only time will tell...much pain and suffering will we suffer in order for our eyes to open. Indeed.

iliana, student should have stood up and kissed the authorities feet, at 11:41 am EST on November 17, 2006

Re: he should have stood up

Craig C, I think you should get your facts right. As per some students present there (Laila etc), he did stand up and was leaving the library.

YK, Re: he should have stood up, at 11:45 am EST on November 17, 2006

Craig on constitutionality

Craig, What statute are you talking about? Are you talking about Penal Code section 726 (the failure to disburse statute). This requires a showing of: that the scene in question was the place of a riot or of a rout or of an unlawful assembly; that the petitioners, along with the other persons present, had been lawfully warned to disperse; and that the petitioners heard the warning and failed to disperse. I don’t think that in California there is a statutory requirement that people show ID. (In practice, these statutes are rarely prosecuted on their own, because there are lingering constitutional problems, and instead are plead to in lieu of other charges.)

I appreciate the effort that you put into addressing this difficult problem, but it is very hard to reach the conclusion that a statute or regulation doesn’t violate the constitution unless you actually can identify the statute with specificity.

Larry, at 12:25 pm EST on November 17, 2006

Take this, angry parent!

Wow, I can’t believe that arrogance of some of these posts!

I have 3 associates degrees, and a bachelors degree, and have been in the military, having served in the Army and saw combat in Grenada (yes, that was 1983).

Because of the current economic situation in the US, aviation isn’t doing so well (my area of specialization), and I am considering a career change, and considering become a police officer.

I am very sure that there are police officers out there with all varying levels of education, from the mandatory associates degree (at least here in Minnesota you must have two years after high school), all the way up to post-graduate level.

If Jon Carry (intentional) was making a comment about the low education of people stuck (backwards “k") n Irac, this is the same arrogance I am seeing now by people who think they are the elite because they (or their precious rebel children) are part of the pretigious UCLA.

Why don’t you just start to repsect the law, and those whose job it is to enforce it for crying out loud?

This whole thing could have been prevented if the person would have presented an ID, which as we are hearing is standard procedure.

davidpaul, at 12:45 pm EST on November 17, 2006

Show me your papers!

Tasers are substitues to guns in a way, to prevent these men-in-blue to be less damaging when they get their adrenaline rush. From eye-witness accounts, this guy with no ID was not a threat to the men-in-blue or others around there. If we are going to justify taser-use for lack of ID or something like that, where on earth is the land of Liberty?Even if this guy was ‘disobeying orders’, he was far outnumbered by the MIB’s. There is no excuse for this! Its a blatant violation of that guy’s rights! Baby, this is not America!

sam noonan, Not institutionalized, at 1:00 pm EST on November 17, 2006

The issue of University policy regarding ID checks is beside the point. The issue here is the application of force when it is clear that the officers were not in physical danger themselves. Physical force should only be used when the officer or the public is in imminent physical danger. If you watch the video on YouTube you will see one police officer threaten a bystander with the taser after the bystander asked for the officer’s ID. No one threatened the officers and no one attempted to physically interfere with them. The university has a obligation to examine its policing policies and to restrict the application of physical force to instances in which the officer or the public are in imminent physical danger.

Susan Gutman, at 1:20 pm EST on November 17, 2006

Follow Directions

The student mistakenly protested the officer touching him. Once you start resisting they can escalate the force they use with continued resistence.

The student is foolish to believe he would have been treated better in any other country in the world under similar circumstances.

Most children in the US are taught at a very early age that cooperation with police is the best practice to avoid further unpleasantries.

In this case, the student was being obnoxious and got a very predictable outcome.

David, at 1:25 pm EST on November 17, 2006

Lqwful?

So who determines what is “lawful” police conduct? Are all police requests lawful? Take a look at Rodney King case and hundreds of other similar cases. The first black woman who got on the bus and sat in front broke the law too. They just didn’t have tazers at the time.

I salute this student for being brave and making a point against racial profiling which is now so rampant in our society.

For those who are supporting the police action in this case just remember that this could happen to you too, if not to your sons and daughters. And when it does happen, I hope you are as brave as this person and stand up for your rights rather than sheepishly following orders.

Tourang, at 1:25 pm EST on November 17, 2006

response to sam noonan

Why can’t you say the words “Police Officer,” or “Law Enforcement Officer?” Why do you say MIB’s? The terms you use show your distaste and disrespect for the law, period.

You see, people in Washington D.C. who are elected to be there ESTABLISH laws. The same thing goes on in California, on a State level. Well guess what? President Bush, and Governor Shwartzenager (hope I got that spelling right) aren’t going to walk the beat at 11:00 pm to be sure everybody is obeying the law.

No, States sit down, and establish minimum requirements for people that they want out there walking the beats, to ENFORCE the laws that they have established.

When you see an MIB (as you lovingly call them), you are to treat them as if it was the President, or the Governor standing there, because in essence, they are.

If you show an attitude of overall disdain for the Police, you simply do not respect your elected leaders, and the laws they have established.

In American, this is government of the people, by the people, FOR THE PEOPLE. The laws that these police officers were enforcing at UCLA were for the protection of the people present.

It is NOT too much to ask, to ask people who are students in a library at 11:00 at night to show their ID. And it is MOST DEFINITELY not too much to ask, for students in University to show some respect for a police officer, which this student didn’t do, from the very outset of the altercation.

That student would have been wrong to deny the Chancellor or President of the University, or to deny Governor Swartzenager (sp?). The Police Officer is only an intermediary between the student and the Governor, and should be respected as such.

davidpaul, at 1:45 pm EST on November 17, 2006

Response to Craig C

You’re way off base by attempting to equate the absence of muderers and rapists in the library to checking students ids. See the posting above you for the irrational institutionalizing of fear. Rape and murder happen, and they are committed by people with ids too. Your bias is glaring when one looks at your description of, “a lawful request by a police offices” statement. The showing of IDs is a campus policy, not a state or federal law. Whether the student produced one or not does not mean any force used by a police officer is automatically lawful, like their requests.

Ryan, at 3:10 pm EST on November 17, 2006

Police shouldn’t order things tha can’t be done

After repeated tasering, my understanding is that it can be impossible to stand. Therefore, the repeated tasering after he was unable to stand was what would be called a ‘hard loop’ in old computer terminology. As has already been pointed out, passive resistance does not require violence to provdie security. The officers could have easily carried a limp student out if that was absolutely necessary for the safety and security of the UCLA library. I doubt that it was, but it would have been a nonevent if that had been their course of action. As it was, it looks like another case of abusive use of tasers. We need to ask what we are willing to give up for a little more security.

Rebecca Church, University of Iowa, at 4:00 pm EST on November 17, 2006

Rube

Being called a “rube” by B.D. is a distinct honor. The intellectually challenged ultimately resort to name calling because they don’t have any real information, just opinions, or the ability to forge a coherent argument. The more they talk (or post) the more they look like idiots.

That’s it for me in this thread, though I’ve made a few remarks about this discussion over at my boorish little weblog.

Joseph Duemer, Professor at Clarkson University, at 4:00 pm EST on November 17, 2006

Professor Duemer

We’re not quite there, but getting closer and closer every day ... http://www.ethicsdaily.com/article_detail.cfm?AID=8147

Anne, at 4:20 pm EST on November 17, 2006

Reality Check

There are several “arguments” I am seeing. I am going to touch on two of them: 1. Did the police use excessive force? 2. Are we now living in a police state because we check ID in the libraries?

1. Did the police use excessive force?

That’s not up to anyone to say at the moment. The videos certainly didn’t capture everything up to the incident, and really didn’t capture much but the surroundings of the incident. The police report and a culmination of all eye witness accounts, plus the videos taken, will be able to clarify things. It’s a pretty narrow-minded approach to jump to judgment without all the facts in hand.

2. Are we now living in a police state because we check ID in the libraries?

When I was in college, I appreciated the police checking ID late at night. As a woman it made me feel safer to know that there was going to be random checks in our university libraries at night. Personally, I’d really prefer to know security personnel are around when the library doesn’t have nearly as many people milling about, and I’m often surrounded by strangers, or alone with some man I didn’t know.

How can I complain about my “rights” being infringed upon when the reality is that without the campus police doing random checks of the patrons, I may not be safe? It’s not unheard of for people to be attacked in libraries or in other campus buildings late at night.

Anyway, just my two cents.... take it or leave it.

MP, at 4:31 pm EST on November 17, 2006

Choose your own adventure...

There are many posts in here that are critical of the UCLA campus police. (I for one would have just dragged him out after the first tazing, why expect compliance after that). So I must ask, what would you have done. Please fill in the blanks.

1. Student refuses to produce ID for the CSO’s. If I were the police I would have _____.

2. Student refuses to produce ID or leave the library for campus police. If I were the police I would have _____.

3. Student goes limp and refuses to cooperate during the escort out of the building. If I were the police I would have _____.

4. Student makes self-righteous statements that suggest he baited the police into an altercation. If I were the police I would have _____.

This is a sad incident. It’s even more sad that many posts in here are from professors who support the actions of this student. Do you really support the idea that people don’t have to comply with police directives if they don’t agree? Is that how you advocate change? It’s also sad that many of the professors who posted comments were so derogatory and racist.

-"THESE OFFICERS PROBABLY DO NOT HAVE A HIGH SCHOOL CERTIFICATE…HOW MANY SMITHS AND THE WILLIAMS THEY WOULD HAVE TASED.” -T. OMOTAYO ADESANYA M.D, M.D

-"And here I thought that in the US one does not have to produce papers for any under-educated, over-aggressive goon in a uniform who decides he doesn’t like your looks.” Joseph Duemer, Professor at Clarkson University

The internet is the best friend of moderates, classical liberals and libertarians. It exposes the true nature of leftist ideals to the public at large.

Electric Personality, Math Grad Student, at 4:31 pm EST on November 17, 2006

Electric Personality?

Are you calling me a a racist? If so, you better show some evidence, my boy. If you are merely saying that I made derogatory remarks, that’s exactly right & I stand by them. That’s the trouble with that whole freedom of speech thingy we have in the Constitution. People say things you don’t like & yeah, I guess for some that’s really, really “sad.” My god, what a bunch of fatuous, empty-headed, a-historical, nonsense.

All right, really. That’s all from me. I’m going to go watch the Founding Fathers spinning in their graves.

Joseph Duemer, Professor at Clarkson University, at 5:01 pm EST on November 17, 2006

Thanks for the laughs

” .. The intellectually challenged ultimately resort to name calling ..”

Thanks for the laughs. Vain, pompous attempts at taking a moral high ground went out with driving off the Chappaquiddick bridge in an Oldsmobile 88.

Next time I see someone attacked late at night outside a library, I’ll call you and the ACLU Police Department to help. Then, I’ll call an ambulance for the injured (i.e., the non-criminals). Good luck!

B.D., at 10:05 pm EST on November 17, 2006

sic

Larry, I would like to digress from the substantive content of the debate and draw attention to the fact that, despite your obvious contempt for B.D.’s minor spelling errors, your own posts are riddled with errors in spelling, capitalization, punctuation, mistaken word choices, etc. There are also several phrases that are missing the operative word(s) that would make them intelligible. While my list is not exhaustive, here are 12 errors that I readily spotted: 1) I should not, BD, that someone who criticized a government institution by claiming it violated someone’s constitutional rights is under no moral or logical obligation to either join the police or offer a better solution. 2)Likewise, the defendants will be able to assert a number of defenses namely qualified immunity. 3)My use of quotation marks was to denote terms of art (as in the case of “qualified immunity”) or philosophical models that do not necessarily mean that our society has every reached. 4)and “re you offering to help the UCLA cops, 5)For example, since you and I both all the opinions from the SCOTUS, we might disagree as to what they mean 6)I have never met a non-lawyer that would thinks that it is immoral 7)Craig, What statute are you talking about? 8)This requires a showing of: that the scene in question was the place of a riot or of a rout or of an unlawful assembly 9)David, Whether or not the student would have been treated better or worse in other countries is irrelevant to the constitutional analysis. 10)Secondly, don’t be entirely sure that an ID requirement, itself is constitutional on a public campus. 11)most of the time, “lawful order” convictions result from pleas to somewhat greater offenses, so their constitutional usually is not tested. 12)The beauty or our system of justice, is that everyone will get a chance to tell their story.You have told us that “(t)here is also no crime in being arrogant. In fact, many consider it a strength.” I would imagine that you consider yourself to be quite strong.

Michael McIntyre, at 10:10 pm EST on November 17, 2006

The Election

The election was not about the Patriot Act. It was about the war in Iraq. If Bush hadn’t screwed things up over there, the GOP would have prevailed. I’m not hurting because of the election. It was obvious what was coming. What bothers me about it is Bush cared more about opening our borders, and in my mind decided to let the Dems win, just so he could get his amnesty bill passed. By the way, I do agree that those who can’t use correct spelling and punctuation are on the wrong website.

Craig C, political pundit at http://blogresponder.blogspot.com, at 10:10 pm EST on November 17, 2006

Wha?

” .. This is pure racism and abuse by the police ..”

What about the officers who were non-white?

” .. Why didn’t the police just drag him away from the library?”

That would have taken another team of cops, wouldn’t it?

” .. How did the know that he didn’t have a heart problem, if he did, he would of been dead right now.”

Who’s fault would that have been? The “victim’s?

Anyone who has a heart problem who disses people with guns has no one to blame but himself, IMHO.

B.I.G., at 11:15 am EST on November 18, 2006

No other issue here...

Y’all have talked this to death, and BD’s obtuseness has already been established. There is really one issue here.

I have no problem with the ID sweep in the library. It’s a fair trade: safety in open and accessible libraries in a metropolitan environment where people often want to do harm or are up to no-good. ID sweeps in public libraries are another question, but this is a university library.

The issue is this: Did the police have the right to grab his arm when they asked him to leave? The answer is clearly “no.” And from the minute he was grabbed, he had cause for protest. Did the police have the right to end his protest with a tazer? Obviously not. He was loud, obnoxious, and arrogant (I agree with Larry here: these are not criminal acts, and police ought to be ready to deal with them with a more subtle arsenal).

Congratulations are due to the quick-thinking UCLA students who filmed the event, and to the students who gathered to protest as it was happening. Next time, block the doors, demand his release, and get those badge numbers.

BP, at 1:05 pm EST on November 18, 2006

LL, I am trying to see what you are saying. First of all, “Institutional anarchy” is a bit of an oxymoron. Second of all, since you have not identified any error in anyone’s logic or legal theories, your assertion that you find it funny makes little sense.

“Innocence” and “guilt” are sort of strange terms. My guess is that everyone at San Quentin is “guilty” since they either plead guilty, or were convicted. Whether or not you think such legal proceedings are “just” is another story. But, in the American system, people may go free even if they “did it” or go to jail if they didn’t “do it.” We could change things, but most people are more concerned with gay marriage then with changing standards of proof.

BP, The badge numbers and identities of the cops will be known soon enough, even if they tried to hide them because the college, in the course of the lawsuit will have to produce them, and the officers will likely have to provide testimony if they wish to try to assert a defense of qualified immunity. The college will be obligated to produce the identities of the people involved. On the other hand, it is very important that people act maturely and not go down to the level of people that use violence.

Larry, at 9:30 pm EST on November 18, 2006

Final post on this topic

Thanks to all of you for the debate on this issue.

Thanks for the advice to go to law school. It has always been a facination of mine, that is, to study law.

It has not always been the case that you had to have a four-year undergrad from an acredited (the more liberal the better) institution to get accepted to law school, and law schools were not always required by the State bar to require applicants to either go full-time the first year, or have an accredited undergrad degree.

In fact, Abraham Lincoln found some law books in an alley, and studied them religiously until he almost memorized them, and passed the bar, and became a lawyer.

I would bet that finding a law school where you could just learn law, and not learn a mindset about the law as well, would be a hard thing to do.

There are online law schools (in California) where you can learn law online (non-accredited). And you can graduate, but you are limited to practicing in California. I almost started one of these, but living in Minnesota, I didn’t go for it.

Perhaps I missed my calling, but at 43 with two small kids, not sure if I should change course now or not, but thanks for the encouragement anyways.

I see both sides of this debate, both sides have very worthy things to say.

On the other side, I do have a heart, and wouldn’t want to see anyone hurt by a stun gun (that is, receive permanent damage).

No matter how you slice it, this guy egged on the officers, and refused their commands (and yes, they are commands, not recommendations).

As he escalated his rebellion, they escalated their force.

I supposed its a good thing you weren’t the student, and it is also probably a good thing I wasn’t one of the officers.

We part ways, agreeing to disagree. . .

davidpaul, at 6:10 am EST on November 19, 2006

UCLA Taser — One Cops View

I have followed this incident and read these posted comments with great interest. As far as I can tell, I am the only police officer to post here.

Let me first say that we should all appreciate living in a country where forums such as this are not only tolerated, they are your Constitutional Right.

It is clear that racism is a problem still in our society today. To my dismay, many people that I contact in my line of work are convinced that the primary reason that I have contacted, detained or arrested them, was because of their ethnic background. Some, I am conviced, believe I have singled them out because of their race. Others, I think, want to blame thier situation on racism in general and never take any personal responsibility for their plight.

I am Caucasion. I can’t help it. I was born that way.

I saw the YouTube video clip of the incident at UCLA. Unfortunately, I could not really tell what was going on in the video clip. It was clear that a young man was being tased by police. The clip that I saw did not include the events that led up to the “use of force.”

From what I can tell from the postings I have read, everybody is stuck on the wrong issues. The issue is not racist, power-drunk cops using any excuse they can to electrocute somebody. To classify this incident in that light is sensationalistic and only serves to complicate relationships between law enforcement officers and the communities they serve.

I agree that this incident, based soley on the video clips, is disturbing and raises questions about whether the officers involved used the appropriate force to handle the situation. Except for the fact that the involved student happened to apparently be of Mid-Eastern decent, I did not see anything at all in the clip to indicate that the incident was racially motivated on any level.

In my twelve year carreer in Law Enforcement, I have had a few people that expressed displeasure with the sevice I have provided. I have always provided my department business card to them and explained that it was their right to make a complaint about me. I have only ever had a few complaints. I have never been the subject of an internal investigation.

I believe that I represent the vast majority of professional law enforcement officers employed in America today. I cannot excuse officers who have evil intent. I think that I may have only ever met one in my career who I knew did not have the best interests of the public he served in his heart. He in fact, may be evil, and was definately a criminal.

There are mechanisms in place in both the civil and the criminal arena set forth to deal with citizen complaints about police conduct or misconduct. I believe that the truths of the UCLA Taser incident will come clean in the wash. If Officers acted illegally or in anything other than good faith. That too should come to light.

The criminal justice system in our country moves very slowly, but deliberately. Many in this age of information are too impatient. They want immediate gratification and satisfaction when they feel there has been an outrage or an injustice. By the time the UCLA Taser incident has come full circle to some kind of disposition, the public will have long since moved on to some new outrage or injustice.

I am coming to a point here. To call this incident, “ANOTHER INCIDENT OF RACIST COPS ON A POWER TRIP,” is every bit as BAD as calling it, “MIDEASTERN MAN TERRORIZED UCLA LIBRARY FORCING POLICE TO SUBDUE HIM BY TASER.”

Don’t succumb to the media hype. Extremist viewpoints to the right or left are probably not healthy and generally meant to incite your emotions instead of your intellect.

May your next contact with a law enfocement officer be a pleasant one, even if he or she issues you a ticket. -LC

LC, Police Officer at a northstate CSU, at 9:10 am EST on November 19, 2006

tasers, Paul, and provocation

Mr. Paul, First of all, whether or not he egged on the officers is irrelevant. In fact, the Supreme Court has held that since officers are allegedly trained to be egged on, they simply cannot be provoked. See footnote one of Gooding v. Wilson (1972), for the words that were far worse than the ones at issue here. If he had physically attacked the officers we might have a different story here – and we would need a lot more facts to even answer these constitutional questions – so I have refrained from doing any actual application of the law here. LC (the cop who posted below you) seems to agree with me: you can’t really tell what is going on.

The analysis is on whether 1) the students’ constitutional rights were violated; and 2) if raised, whether a reasonable officer could not have know that he was violating the student’s constitutional rights.

While there are technically online law schools, they are unaccredited, and not taken seriously. (And only a few states allow their grads to even sit for the bar.) In the past lawyers didn’t go to law school, and many were good people. But times have changed. For better or worse lawyers do have a “mindset” but somehow, despite this mindset, we do manage to put people away and fill the jails.

BD, That is a bit of an overstatement. Most things CAN kill. Billyclubs can kill. Nerf soccer balls can kill. The argument that has been made is that tasers have killed more often than expected when they are improperly or indiscriminately used.

Larry, at 12:30 pm EST on November 19, 2006

So much not the point

I also watched the YouTube video. I didn’t count the officers, but it seemed pretty clear to me that they were sufficient in number to overwhelm the student in whatever way they wanted. It also seemed unlikely that THEY, the officers, were in any danger from the student.

I don’t see anyone mentioning this point. The officers and the other students were safe. The objectives seemed to be (1) remove the putative student and (2) arrest him.

So