Search News


Browse Archives

News

Shock and Anger at UCLA

November 17, 2006

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

An incident that lasted only a few minutes Tuesday night in a library at the University of California at Los Angeles is capturing attention worldwide and raising questions about what constitutes legitimate police action on a college campus. In the incident, filmed and distributed online, campus police repeatedly stunned a student with a Taser when he couldn't produce an ID.

“This is very unusual,” said Nancy Greenstein, a spokeswoman for UCLA's police department. She added that she has been fielding calls from as far away as London. “I’ve never dealt with something like this, and I’ve been here 10 years.” The department has released a statement saying that officers deemed it necessary to use force and that the incident is being investigated.

Students at UCLA have set up Facebook and MySpace sites to organize and plan to hold a protest today. “I think it’s ridiculous that they used their Tasers,” said Combiz Abdolrahimi, a third year student in international economics who is coordinating the protest. Abdolrahimi said that he became involved after viewing a video of the event and that he does not know the student who was involved.

The confrontation took place Tuesday evening after 11:00 p.m., when campus security officers were making their rounds through the library, checking students for identification as part of their normal security procedures. Mostafa Tabatabainejad, a student, did not produce his identification and was apparently asked to leave.

“I went back to my work, and when I looked up, I saw that [Tabatabainejad] was already LEAVING the library,” said Laila, a UCLA student via e-mail. Laila asked that her last name not be used. She said that she does not know Tabatabainejad and was just another student studying in the library. “He had his backpack on his shoulders, and was next to my computer (about 2 feet away) when he was approached by two [UCLA police] officers.”

Laila said that the officers grabbed Tabatabainejad’s arm and he began to shout for the officers to stop touching him.

Two videos of the incident, shot with cell phone cameras, can be found online. One video is carried by the Los Angeles local NBC affiliate. In the video, officers can be heard shouting numerous times, “Get up! Stand up!” The video is shot from behind a table with computers, but Tabatabainejad apparently pops up briefly before falling. A Taser can then be heard buzzing.

An officer is then heard shouting, “Stand up!” A female student in the background begins crying, and a male voice can be heard saying, “I don’t believe this is happening.”

Officers continue shouting “Stand up!” numerous times.

A male voice yells, “Stop.” And a female cries, “He just stood up!”

Tabatabainejad then comes to his feet, arms apparently cuffed behind his back, supported by two officers. He then falls again and disappears as a swarm of students rush forward, blocking the camera. In a later scene, Tabatabainejad is shown, being escorted away by two officers with his hands cuffed behind his back.

NBC reported that students claimed that Tabatabainejad was stunned with a Taser at least five times.

A video on YouTube shows an equally chaotic scene in the library. Somebody off-screen, apparently Tabatabainejad, can be heard screaming multiple times, “Don’t touch me!”

Tabatabainejad then says, “Here’s your Patriot Act! Here’s your fucking abuse of authority!” Students can then be heard asking the officers for their badges.

Students can be heard protesting in the background. “Don’t do that!” says a woman. The officers then stun Tabatabainejad with the Taser.

In the next scene Tabatabainejad has his hands apparently cuffed behind his back and is next to a stairwell. An officer at his side leans forward and says, “Stand up. You’re going to get tased.” They then apparently stun him again, and his feet fly out from beneath him as he leaps into the air. Students then rush forward, blocking the camera, and can be heard screaming at the officers.

The video then cuts to a different location, apparently by the front entrance to the library An officer is telling a student to get back. Pointing in one direction, the officer says “Back over there. Because I said so. Back over there, or you’re gonna’ get tased too.” The student then leaves.

“Investigators are reviewing the incident and the officers' actions. The investigation and review will be thorough, vigorous and fair,” said Norman Abrams, acting chancellor , in a press release. He noted that the rules about checking ID in the library after 11 p.m. are well known.

In a separate statement, UCLA’s police department said that Tabatabainejad refused multiple requests to leave and went limp when officers attempted to escort him from the library. The officers then deemed it necessary to user the Taser because Tabatabainejad encouraged students to join his resistance and a crowd began to gather.

But Laila, who said she witnessed the whole event, denied that Tabatabainejad encouraged students to join. “Students were trying to help him because they could see what was happening was wrong," she said. She added that dozens of student witnesses were angry at the officers' actions. If over 30 students were objecting, she said, "how can anyone think what was happening was right?”

The use of Tasers varies across campuses. The campus police departments at Columbia, Princeton and Vanderbilt Universities, and the Universities of California at Berkeley and Southern California do not carry Tasers. However, officers do carry Tasers at UC-Davis.

“I’m not commenting on what is appropriate or is not appropriate,” said Steven Healy, president of the International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators. Healy said that videos of police using force, while troubling to watch, can sometimes give a distorted view of what officers are doing. “Unfortunately, many times there is no context to see what led to it,” he said.

Greenstein said that the police department is investigating the matter, but will probably not have a report until after the winter break.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Shock and Anger at UCLA

  • Campus Cops = Keystone Cops
  • Posted by Jeff , Assistant Professor on November 17, 2006 at 6:45am EST
  • 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.

  • Cops always wrong?
  • Posted by B.D. on November 17, 2006 at 6:45am EST
  • Having worked in the criminal justice system as a court reporter -- I'm dismayed by these kinds of situations.

    Were one of the UCLA "protestors" to believe they were being "harassed" by someone, late at night -- of course, they would expect the UCLA police to intervene immediately, with maximum effort.

    But, how many of them have had to physically restrain, a resisting suspect? It is like Lou Cannon's report on the Rodney King tape, en toto -- with the suspect tackling police officers, prior to force being used. Or the UCSF incident with the faculty member, trying to force his way into his office, late at night.

    http://xpress.sfsu.edu/archives/news/005821.html

    http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2005/11/02/sfsu

    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.

    Should the UCLA police have been more patient in this matter? Well -- what about the other 60,000 persons under their watch?

    For that matter -- are critics of campus police, offering to help them become better? That is, if they are so much smarter and stronger ..

  • reply to BD
  • Posted by Larry on November 17, 2006 at 7:45am EST
  • 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.

  • Posted by T. OMOTAYO ADESANYA M.D , M.D on November 17, 2006 at 7:56am EST
  • AS A COLLEGE STUDENT AM SURE PARENTS DID NOT SEND THEIR SONS AND DAUGHTERS TO BE TASED .....AFTER THE SUDENT IS NOT A BULLY TO BE TASED IN THE LIBRARY OF A REPUTABLE UNIVERSITY LIKE UCLA IS BEYOND MY COMPREHENSION......THESE OFFICERS PROBABLY DO NOT HAVE A HIGH SCHOOL CERTIFICATE .....BUT THEY THINK THEY HAVE POWER AND THEY ABUSED...THE LAST NAME OF THE SUDENT SOUNDS FOREIGN I WONDER HOW MANY SMITHS AND THE WILLIAMS THEY WOULD HAVE TASED...SHAME THEM AND THEY SHOULD BE FIRED AND PROSECUTED.ANGRY PARENT.

  • The Rules
  • Posted by Joseph Duemer , Professor at Clarkson University on November 17, 2006 at 8:10am EST
  • "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.

  • Is that really necessary?
  • Posted by Tom McCool on November 17, 2006 at 8:26am EST
  • Larry,

    Is it really necessary to personally attack someone who is expressing her opinion? Criticizing someone's spelling is an old, tired tactic used by discussion forum bullies since the dawn of the Internet. So is the tactic of using quotation marks as a form of belittlement. Grow up.

  • Use restraint
  • Posted by Tolana on November 17, 2006 at 8:26am EST
  • 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.

  • Hullo, Larry
  • Posted by B.D. on November 17, 2006 at 9:50am EST
  • Dang, Lar .. are you offering to help the UCLA cops, sweep the UCLA libraries for urine-soaked vagrants, drunks, violent ex-felons, dope fiends, and fifth-year undergraduate miscreants, late at night?

    Dang, Lar .. you and Mr. Duemer are brave and strong. And thanks for pointing out my spelling errors -- you're doing a heck'a job, bud.

  • Doesn't this article refer to protestors?
  • Posted by Brad on November 17, 2006 at 9:50am EST
  • 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.

  • Citations issued
  • Posted by B.D. on November 17, 2006 at 9:50am EST
  • " .. issuing some kind of stern warnings after they exited the building."

    Actually, at some mega-colleges, when they get someone like this, they issue some kind of official letter/writ (Larry, I don't know the legal term here) that orders them off campus for a year. Not sure if it applies to current students, viz. UCLA.

    Also, zero-tolerance for fireworks, guns, fighting, etc. That is: get caught, lighting fireworks off in the dorm -- permanent removal from dorm.

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

  • Arrogance
  • Posted by Joseph Duemer , Professor at Clarkson University on November 17, 2006 at 9:50am EST
  • Tolana, I would suggest that an "arrogant attitude about breaking the rules" is entirely proper an appropriate when those rules are clearly a violation of every American's right to be "secure in their persons" and safe from "unreasonable search." Just a little matter of the Constitution, you know. Unless the student was causing a disturbance or was dangerous--and there are no witnesses that say he was, nor does the tape suggest as much--he was perfectly within his right to demand that the cops not touch him. Apparently, this arrogant refusal to comply with an unconstitutional rule resulted in the student being repeated hit with taser shots. That behavior, not the student's is "arrogant."

  • Student Should Have Stood Up
  • Posted by Craig C , political pundit at http://blogresponder.blogspot.com on November 17, 2006 at 10:01am EST
  • 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.

  • Fear
  • Posted by Frederic Murray , Asst. Professor at Al Harris Library/SWOSU on November 17, 2006 at 11:05am EST
  • This is what happens when fear is used to justify and establish policy. A random ID check in the Library? What is the reasoning behind this type of action? Is there some kind of criminal ring that is pilfiring Ebsco articles?

    Are citizens no longer allowed access to our great libraries?

    This is what happens when Fear, not reason, is allowed to define who we are.

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

  • Reply to BD
  • Posted by Joseph Duemer , Professor at Clarkson University on November 17, 2006 at 11:10am EST
  • Leave me out of your argument with Larry, please. If you have something substantive to say to me go ahead and say it. I find it interesting that you have to create a fantasy of the scene--a library full of "drunks," "fifth year undergraduate miscreants" whatever that is, etc. in order to rationalize your defense of obviously excessive use of force against a student who was not "protesting" as you earlier asserted, but merely walking toward the exit after failing to produce his identity papers. Your argument amounts to this: because the police sometimes have to move people who do not want to be moved, whatever they do and whatever they decide about the use of force is hunky dory. That is a prescription for thuggery & thuggery is what occurred at UCLA. You like thugs? Fine. I don't.

  • consolidated replies
  • Posted by Larry on November 17, 2006 at 11:10am EST
  • 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.

  • TO B.D.
  • Posted by nota bene on November 17, 2006 at 11:10am EST
  • You have some problems with comma usage as well. You dismiss the importance of correct spelling, but it is not as trivial as you imply--especially in a higher education forum. Mistakes in spelling, grammar, and punctuation look uneducated and unprofessional, and more importantly they detract from a ready understanding of your meaning. You are essentially saying to the readers, “I can’t be bothered to express myself to you as clearly as possible."

  • America & Guns
  • Posted by Greg Harris on November 17, 2006 at 11:10am EST
  • 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.

  • Student Tazed
  • Posted by Dave on November 17, 2006 at 11:15am EST
  • Typical "Liberal" screwed up mentality and thinking! The rules are clear about I.D.'s! You have to produce an I.D. to get on an airplane and most people don't give it a second thought! If you have a problem with a school policy, then don't go to school there and go somewhere else, PERIOD! Another example of a "silver spooned brat" throwing a temper tantrum at authority! I would like to see that person do that in an airport, federal charges would be forthcoming after what he did! For someone who is smart enough to be in a school like UCLA, he sure and the hell forgot about Sept. 11, 2001 which changed they way we think and live forever!

  • Shock and Anger...
  • Posted by Blue on November 17, 2006 at 11:15am EST
  • 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

  • Posted by ml on November 17, 2006 at 11:15am EST
  • If the library wants to limit access to those with ID, it should do so at the door, like many urban university libraries do (at NYU, there are turnstiles that don't open without your campus ID; at CUNY you must show a campus ID or else turn in a driver's license). Otherwise, it is just an excuse for harassment.

    And one wonders: would the officers have tasered a blond cheerleader-type? I doubt it.

  • UCLA incident
  • Posted by Alan D Enstoss , owner at Paint concern on November 17, 2006 at 11:15am EST
  • 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.

  • Posted by Mike on November 17, 2006 at 11:15am EST
  • Typical anti-anything in authority academia.

  • Posted by GPD on November 17, 2006 at 11:15am EST
  • 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.

  • Patriot Act?
  • Posted by Christine on November 17, 2006 at 11:15am EST
  • I'm curious about Mr. Tabatabainejad's statement, "Here's your Patriot Act! Here's your fucking abuse of authority!" Sounds rehearsed to me. As to M.D.'s condescending and undoubtedly inaccurate comment--"These officers probably do not have a high school certificate."--well, his e-mail has a few misspellings, what should I infer from that? How about waiting until the investigation is complete before judging the police?

  • What a mess...
  • Posted by G. on November 17, 2006 at 11:15am EST
  • 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.

  • Parody?
  • Posted by Joseph Duemer , Professor at Clarkson University on November 17, 2006 at 11:15am EST
  • I thought Craig C's post was parody, but when I clicked through to his weblog it turned out to not even be self-parody. Elections are certainly a way of showing disrespect for authority--a sentiment worthy of the best little bemeddled Stalinist one can imagine. Apparently, the fact that Americans voted for Democrats last week, students all over the land will be emboldened to defy the arbitrary exercise of authority by the police. Craig C & his ilk obviously don't like elections or democracy, preferring an authoritarian state in which disrespect is against the law. No doubt Craig C. would stand up and applaud had the ULCA cops simply shot the student in the chest. End of story.

  • Read The TV Station Account
  • Posted by Craig C , political pundit at http://blogresponder.blogspot.com on November 17, 2006 at 11:16am EST
  • 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

  • He got what was coming to him, eh?
  • Posted by N student on November 17, 2006 at 11:20am EST
  • So this student refused to obey a legitimate order, and got what was coming to him, hmm?

    Tell me, by your logic, what's the limit of force that police can apply to cause compliance with a "legitimate" demand?

    Can they tase you?
    How about beating you with a night-stick?
    How about threaten to shoot you?
    How about putting a knife to your throat?
    How about issuing you a citation?

    Where's the limit, and who decides?
    You seem to think that tasing is a fair way to encourage compliance. I think only in the circus. Otherwise, how much different are cops than the criminals they fight? I know I would think twice before asking a cop for help if that kind of behavior was expected.

    Furthermore, even from a machiavellian point of view that cop was stupid. If you want someone to get up, you don't tase them. That is how you make someone sit down. "He was going limp", they said? Generally that IS what happens when a person is well-tased.

    I don't suppose reasonable, calm, understanding conversation was tried, in this case, before the weaponry and ultimatums were brought out? Or is that too liberal of a sentiment for our precious defenders of justice? University library is not homocide squad.

    That cop made a mistake, and he will burn for it. This is the last thing the LAPD could possibly need, especially now, and he will probably be sacrificed cruelly for the upper brass to save their political bums.

  • question for Craig
  • Posted by Larry on November 17, 2006 at 11:20am EST
  • 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)

  • Posted by All IHE Trolls Combined on November 17, 2006 at 11:41am EST
  • B.D. says: "One self-annointed victim, throwing a temper tantrum that will probably result in an investigation that will cost several hundreds of thousands of dollars."

    Craig C, political pundit, says: "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."

    That's exactly right. People have got to wake up and see that taxpayer-supported universities are producing a bunch of self-annointed victims who are inspired by Bush-hating Dhimmicrats into goading the police and then complaining about a little tasing. If the elections hadn't emboldened our enemies over there, we wouldn't have to tase them over here.

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

  • Libraries and Security
  • Posted by Regine , Doc student at NYU on November 17, 2006 at 11:45am EST
  • I realize that this is maybe a little tangential to the real point about the officers' response to the situation at hand, but I would like to address it anyway: when at midnight you are in deep in the stacks in the far back corner on the ninth floor in a library with walls and doors that have been treated to minimize noise - particularly if you happen to be female - it's nice to know that there ARE people checking on the building's current population.

    Furthermore, a university, even a public university, is a place of voluntary participation; no one has ever been FORCED to attend UCLA or any other college, and if an institution's rules are too stringent for one's tastes, then one is welcome to find another, less interfering place of study.

    Does this mean the student involved deserved to be tased? Although it's hard to tell without having been there, I would think very possibly not. On the other hand, does it mean that by refusing to produce identification (if that's what happened) this student should certainly have expected some kind of repercussions? In my opinion, absolutely.

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

  • Posted by Brad on November 17, 2006 at 11:45am EST
  • Thanks for the reply Larry, I will grand you the substance of your courtroom argument although I would not apply it quite as broadly. As stated, I have met some pretty savvy FBI agents, etc.

    I would differ on two points though, first, a protest did happen, “Students can be heard protesting in the background (as the event was happening).” Perhaps you are thinking of later, organized protests and those, I grant, may not have taken place yet. A spontaneous protest, however, is still a protest. Second, I am not sure that BD was arguing that the people “should not be able to annoint themselves” as victims but rather that this one at least should not. I see nothing wrong with urging a voluntary restraint of the exercise of a constitutional restraint. Of course BD is the only one who knows what he meant. By the way, BD’s statement on helping sweep the library of drunks etc was published after the first post and I still disagree that helping equals joining.

    This said I would question BD’s statements that (1) People would want police to interview with maximum effort. I would be shocked if the police shot someone who merely harassed me and would instead prefer ‘appropriate’ effort. (2) His inference that the police need not show patience since they had 60,000 people to watch. It is there job to show patience and the question here is whether or not they did show patience.

  • Craig on constitutionality
  • Posted by Larry on November 17, 2006 at 12:25pm EST
  • 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.

  • Rebellion Never Pays
  • Posted by davidpaul on November 17, 2006 at 12:30pm EST
  • I watched one of the two available videos so far, and from what I could see, the person involved was not being cooperative early on in the video, which led to the 5 shocks with the Taser Gun.

    I am going to be calling the Police at UCLA and trying my best to support and encourage them.

    There is no excuse for rioting, or the general atmosphere of rebellion, and constant questioning of authority that is so prevelent on some University campuses.

    The proper way to change legistlation, or laws of the land, is to first of all cooperate with them, and then change them if proven necessary as you legally influence legislators, or become one.

    These police are SWORN officers, and have a DUTY to uphold the laws of the land, including providing a safe environment on campus, especially after dark, and after 11:00 pm. The "rights" of the library staff, and all the other students in the area, suppercedes the rights of this uncooperative student (if he was a student with a proper ID which the officers had no way of knowing at the time of the altercation because he wouldn't cooperate and show an ID).

    He could very well have been a terrorist at worst, or at the least been someone who had no business being there.

    For purposely deciding to stump the police, he got what he deserved.

  • Take this, angry parent!
  • Posted by davidpaul on November 17, 2006 at 12:45pm EST
  • 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.

  • ',,,shock and anger...'
  • Posted by Dave Anthony on November 17, 2006 at 12:55pm EST
  • I tell you what 'shocks and angers me'. In justices take place all over the world, but certain self-righteous ideologues want to grandstand over an incident like this. Student are '...to organize and ... to protest' this incident, but no one knows the facts or particulars. Any excuse is good enough to stand around piously questioning authority -- especially if it's in the good ol' U.S. of A. You see -- you can do that here and you don't get jailed, tortured or executed. It sure does take a lot of courage to do such things when one knows there aren't going to be any jackboots on one's neck. If these oh-so-concerned students want to confront real oppression and evil, then I suggest they go to places where it exists wholesale. I have a feeling they won't. Now everyone can speculate upon why the won't...

  • Show me your papers!
  • Posted by sam noonan at Not institutionalized on November 17, 2006 at 1:00pm EST
  • 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!

  • Get real
  • Posted by B.D. on November 17, 2006 at 1:20pm EST
  • " .. A random ID check in the Library?"

    Closer reading of facts indicates EVERYONE is checked by UCLA police, late at night.

    " .. What is the reasoning behind this type of action?"

    See previous on urine-stained vagrants, violent ex-felons, dope fiends, loud drunks, et al.

    Students pushed for libraries opened late at night. Unfortunately, such facilities have become gathering places for the possibly violent.

    If anyone wants to verify this -- try going there yourself at midnight. Without the police -- or your own handgun. Show us your bravery.

  • Posted by Susan Gutman on November 17, 2006 at 1:20pm EST
  • 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.

  • Uncooperative
  • Posted by Joseph Duemer , Professor at Clarkson University on November 17, 2006 at 1:25pm EST
  • Mike & Dave & Craig C. & now davidpaul all say the student got what was coming to him. I remember when, in 1970, a lot of the good citizens of Kent, Ohio, wrote letters to the editor of their local paper saying that the four students shot dead by guardsmen, also, "got what they deserved." You can read the letters in the Library of America's Reporting Vietnam (vol. 2). They're chilling.

    The only response to the people named above is ga-ga disbelief at their ignorance of the Constitution & American traditions of dissent. Freedom is inconvenient & troublesome. Because if you want freedom for yourself, you have to grant it to "fifth year undergraduate miscreants" & all the other unpleasant riffraff who who make the lives of real Americans so difficult.

    My God, if Thomas Jefferson could hear these police state groupies drawling sanguinely about "disrespect" & being "uncooperative," he would weep in despair. Yes sir, those American revolutionaries who rebelled (remember, "rebellion never pays") against the British should have just gone along in order to get along. That Boston Tea Party thing? That was just so rude! Not to mention the destruction of property. Let's just erase that history. Some Americans, by the evidence of this discussion thread, love authority more than freedom. A whole lot more. When that attitude dominates, we will no longer have anything that looks like any America I know. Maybe we're already there.

  • Follow Directions
  • Posted by David on November 17, 2006 at 1:25pm EST
  • 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.

  • Taze him again!!!
  • Posted by Russ Moore on November 17, 2006 at 1:25pm EST
  • Just because you're a minority doesn't give you the right to resist the campus cops. Those guys are there to protect us, and EVERYONE ON CAMPUS should show their ID when asked - I do. Does being a minority mean that everytime you're approached by a cop mean is unwarranted?? He was resisting the security guards and they had every right to taze him. I would hope he would learn something from this, but he won't. So taze him again. And again. And again until he learns. Geeez, what a world.

  • Lqwful?
  • Posted by Tourang on November 17, 2006 at 1:25pm EST
  • 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.

  • potpourri
  • Posted by Jess on November 17, 2006 at 1:40pm EST
  • Has anyone else ever worked on a college campus in a situation requiring cooperation with DPS/Campus PD/whatever they are called? As a Residence Life professional (yes, I work in those "dorm" things) I have had the experience of working at 5 different institutions, public and private and Jesuit to boot. In each of my positions, I was charged with utilizing the campus police to address safety and policy violations and at each institution, have been in a situation to bear witness to inappropriate behavior and use of force. My understanding is such that in MOST cases, the people who are hired to work that killer shift that goes well into the night are the lowest in seniority and that's where they start. Oftentimes they are individuals with little to no university experience and rarely do they understand the philosophy of residence life. At my previous institution it got to the point where we doubled up our student staff members on rounds in hopes they would not require assistance from DPS. This was a result of over three years of attempting to work with DPS, attending multiple training sessions and joint meetings and seeming to be "on the same page" a number of times. The lack of understanding and communication simply persisted, which was only further perpetuated by the frequent turnover of officers. It always seemed that just when we found one or two officers that were truly on the same page and really did provide a service, they would ask for a transfer/get promoted to the day shift and we'd once more be left with officers who would kick in a door (when I had the master key in hand) and shove a coffee table through a patio window (when the student was doing as ordered and moving toward the opposite side of the wall). Unfortunately, I think the only thing that can be done is to mandate some sort of better training and/or recruitment. A recent grad of my previous institution had a difficult time finding a job elsewhere so he applied for a night shift position with DPS. His training consisted of one ride-along with the beat officers and a 5 hour presentation about the campus before being hurled into his first shift.

    Additionally, the IDs of most institutions typically state on the back that it should be carried with the student at all times and that University personnel have the ability to ask for it at any time (and the student should be able to produce it). Many institutions also hide this within their campus policies so that administrators like myself can then use that violation as a stepping off point for further inquiries if needed/desired. Is it right? Probably not, but it's still true.

    And coming from an institution in a similar setting as UCLA, I can understand the need for ID checks after 11 but don't whole-heartedly agree with the manner in which UCLA seems to conduct theirs. Many times in my career I had to contact PD because a homeless person, drunk from the bar across the street, or miscreant was found trying to enter the halls, sleeping on the couch in the lobby, living in the bathroom, or had made it into the building somehow. It's not hard to dress to look like a college student & gain access, even when IDs are being swiped.

  • response to sam noonan
  • Posted by davidpaul on November 17, 2006 at 1:45pm EST
  • 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.

  • Posted by tarikur on November 17, 2006 at 3:10pm EST
  • This is pure racism and abuse by the police. Why didn't the police just drag him away from the library? How did the know that he didn't have a heart problem, if he did, he would of been dead right now.

  • Response to Craig C
  • Posted by Ryan on November 17, 2006 at 3:10pm EST
  • 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.

  • Not Kansas -- L.A.
  • Posted by B.D. on November 17, 2006 at 3:10pm EST
  • " .. I remember when, in 1970, a lot of the good citizens of Kent, Ohio .."

    Right. Kent, OH, is in the middle of nowhere (central Ohio), from a time THIRTY-SIX years ago (Nixon was president). UCLA is in the middle of an urban jungle, rubes.

    http://www.switchboard.com/bin/cgimap.dll?FUNC=MAP&BUS=24284229&TTL=Location&MEM=1&L=University+of+California&T=Los+Angeles&S=CA&LO=Los+Angeles,+CA&VL=MSZMb3MgQW5nZWxlcywgQ0EmJkxvcyBBbmdlbGVzJkNBJiYwJjAmMiYyJjAP&QV=26A05B30F3BB4A5EAC340A825BB9FBD0l02975812780056454F323203O019759127800564549323203O079A224EA000564549313203O03822B3DBE00564525313203&QR=1&QX=1&KW=University+of+California

    To those who weep about "bowling alone" -- if I have to bowl with Mr. UCLA, I'll bowl alone, thanks. I've seen too many victims of loud-mouthed boors to do otherwise.

    And if you get assaulted, late at night, call the ACLU Police Department. That's their job -- I'm too busy, honoring those brave American capitalists who resisted British taxation. Who weren't being boorish in a public library, late at night.

  • Police shouldn't order things tha can't be done
  • Posted by Rebecca Church at University of Iowa on November 17, 2006 at 4:00pm EST
  • 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.

  • comment about police
  • Posted by Gerard Sweeney on November 17, 2006 at 4:00pm EST
  • This is really shocking. I have lived or worked in 7 countries in my lifetime (the Netherlands, U.K., Australia, Argentina,Chile, Brazil, India), and I have to say that U.S. law enforcement seems to me (impressionistically, since I don't have hard data available immediately) by far the most draconian (perhaps only Brazil comes close). Students in the U.K., for example routinely get in trouble for various things (smoking pot, vandalism etc.). The police would routinely let the kids off with a stern scolding. In India I have witnessed major student protest activities at Jawaharlal Nehru University that would be considered felonies here in the U.S. Incidents (such as fist fights) that would end with handshakes in the Netherlands and Australia result in jail sentences here. All the countries I have lived in are democratic, and the middle classes enjoy more or less the same freedoms that their counterparts do here. My friends tell me that police in the U.S. reminds them of Singapore police (I don't know much about law enforcement in Singapore so I don't know if I agree with them). Does anyone have any ideas about why law-enforcement in the U.S. might convey this impression?

  • Rube
  • Posted by Joseph Duemer , Professor at Clarkson University on November 17, 2006 at 4:00pm EST
  • 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.

  • who tells the story?
  • Posted by bradley bleck , instructor at Spokane Falls CC on November 17, 2006 at 4:01pm EST
  • A lot of this reminds me about the notion of who gets to tell the story, the student, the police spokesman, the victim, whomever. According to student witnesses, the victim didn't resist until the police decided put their hands on him. I can buy that. But according to Craig, the news station site has it "right," with the U spokesperson saying that the victim agitated the situation. And the police spokesman backing that up? Gee, I'm surprised at that. Tazered for not having ID in a library, for not leaving fast enough? While I have to admit to not seeing what prompted the first tazing, the subsequent tazings on the video, for not following commands of the police, were hardly called for. The police were clearly capable of dragging a handcuffed subject out of the building if that's what was needed in order to but an end to the situation. The guy's prone on the floor, and even walking it would seem when he is tazed at one point. Frankly, I was hoping some of the students would have jumped the police, even more so when the end of one clips has the officer sorta-in-charge telling others "stand back or we'll taze you." Those so-called "community service officers" (how's that for euphemism?) were anything but from what I can see. And to top it all off, here I am a white guy in one of the whitest regions in America and I knew the minute I read the headline the student was black. Go figure. Never mind that one of the cops was black as well, what's the likelihood of a white student getting tazered in the UCLA library? I'd sure like to see the stats on that!

  • Professor Duemer
  • Posted by Anne on November 17, 2006 at 4:20pm EST
  • We're not quite there, but getting closer and closer every day ... http://www.ethicsdaily.com/article_detail.cfm?AID=8147

  • "and now you know the rest of the story . . . "
  • Posted by davidpaul on November 17, 2006 at 4:20pm EST
  • As Paul Harvey knows, there is always more to the story, or at least two sides to every story.

    I am only trying to offset what I am seeing as what could be described as an anti-authority sentiment amongst some, and I repeat some, of the University students.

    The other side of the story is admittedly that any authority, and specifically police power can be abused.

    I have heard of people being killed by Tasers, and that scares me, especially if police use them thinking they won't kill anyone, no matter how many times they taser a person.

    I am also actually not a fan of the Patriot Act, and am conservative in the sense that I would prefer small gov't, and the empowerment of the citizenry of the United States vs. a police state with weak and disarmed citizens.

    The truth, and balance of power lies somewhere inbetween the extremes, and as world-wide terrorism expands, and as our own citizens forget the morals and values (basically our American tradition), we are forced to move more towards a police state.

    This should deeply embed fear in all of us, and make us want to move back to our roots as a nation.

    But . . . I still say this student could have simply produced an ID, and avoided the whole event.

    He made the wrong choice, and suffered the consequences.

  • Reality Check
  • Posted by MP on November 17, 2006 at 4:31pm EST
  • 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.

  • Society gets what it deserves.
  • Posted by Bill in NYC on November 17, 2006 at 4:31pm EST
  • I'm glad that Kent State incident was brought up because there is a similarity in kind, if not degree here. Craig and davidpaul and those who say he got what he deserved, are, in an ironic sense, correct. We have this reich-wing mentality running amok because of the fear that the powers that be have instilled on our populace. They are in power because they were voted there. The pendulum is swinging back, and none too soon, yet there are those (Craig, etc) who felt a sense of loss on November 7, and now are hanging on to any scrap of power abuse they can to feel right and justified. Sorry guys, you were wrong in 2000, and your will always be wrong on this issue. Freedom is lost when we don't question abusive power, and it is smothered when we praise abuse of power.
    Now to the incident at hand ... of course the officers over-reacted in using the taser... that will always happen, but the real tragedy is that the right-wing bench-jockey "pundits" out there are riding this unfortunate wave of fear, and in the process are dumping their waste on the graves of the founding fathers who tried so hard to prevent these base instincts from rising to the top and consuming our freedoms.

  • Choose your own adventure...
  • Posted by Electric Personality , Math Grad Student on November 17, 2006 at 4:31pm EST
  • 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.

  • replies
  • Posted by Larry on November 17, 2006 at 4:55pm EST
  • DavidPaul, Three points. As a matter of constitutional law, exercising a constitutional right or trying to “stump” the police does not immunize the police from liability for tortious or unconstitutional actions. (They may assert qualified immunity as a defense, but I don’t think that is what you are arguing.) Secondly, having multiple associates degrees does not impress anyone. Third, being a “sworn” actually restricts their behavior, and means that, in fact, they CAN violate peoples’ constitutional rights, whereas, in general, non-government actors cannot. So, your “sworn” argument works against your position. Mr. Paul, none of the people in here are showing disrespect for the law. The police are but one small part of “the law” in this country, and their role is eclipsed by the respect for personal liberties enshrined in the constitution. So, in the words of many a person, “Get over yourself.”

    Mr. Anthony, Yes. Injustice takes place everywhere. But, that doesn’t mean that minor injustices don’t exist and can’t be rectified.

    David, Whether or not the student would have been treated better or worse in other countries is irrelevant to the constitutional analysis. If you are going to argue against those that are making a constitutional argument, you probably should at least address their “excessive force” argument in terms of the Supreme Court, California Courts, and 9th Circuit’s jurisprudence on the issue.

    Mr. Moore, Two points: Just because there is an ID requirement on campus does not mean that campus police must – or can – use excessive force within the meaning of the US Constitution. Secondly, don’t be entirely sure that an ID requirement, itself is constitutional on a public campus. To my knowledge the “possess ID” (as opposed to show ID after probable cause) requirement has never been definitely decided.

    Tourang, As I pointed out earlier 1) Craig is not referring to a specific statute; and 2) most of the time, “lawful order” convictions result from pleas to somewhat greater offenses, so their constitutional usually is not tested.

    Mr. Bleck, The beauty or our system of justice, is that everyone will get a chance to tell their story.

  • Electric Personality?
  • Posted by Joseph Duemer , Professor at Clarkson University on November 17, 2006 at 5:01pm EST
  • 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.

  • Poor police practice, at best?
  • Posted by Jays on November 17, 2006 at 10:05pm EST
  • One cannot see the details on some videos, but you can see a lot of other humans that were were really distressed and emotional that were milling around. Having an emotionally-aroused crowd of humans is not a good situation. There are several distressing questions that the videos do not solve one way or another (was the student racially profiled, etc), but just examining the known inputs and known outputs this would seem poor police practice.

    The police have a hard and difficult job, but it would seem these particular officers made that job more difficult by what they managed to accomplish here within this crowd.

    The police managed to take as input a situation without anyone doing anything more dangerous than a person silently studying that could not or would not prove they were a student to a output situation where there was an angry, emotionally distressed crowd that had the distinct possibility to escalate to something ugly. What all have agreed on hardly seems to justify the use of tazing, in general. Even if justified, humans have a very visceral emotional response to people screaming in pain...even if the student "deserved tazing" it seems foolish to taze someone repeatedly in this kind of situation and create an emotional crowd that could surround you, unless that tazing was absolutely required for the immediate safety of them or others.

    On this basis of their personal safety alone, it seems to be really poor police practice to let this get out of hand in this manner. Statements to individuals in the crowd that they might get tazed too seem to have been made and if made or acted on, could have been an unfortuate trigger to further escalate the situation.

    One would think that police officers would be better on adjusting the response to the needs of public safety.

    If I would have been in the crowd milling around in those videos or, in general, on campus with this poor judgement of people with weapons, I would not feel safer.

    On this basis alone, it seems the offical UCLA response is weak and anemic....The inputs clearly do not justify the outputs considering crowd dynamics and when viewed as a public safety issue, it seems to me.

  • Thanks for the laughs
  • Posted by B.D. on November 17, 2006 at 10:05pm EST
  • " .. 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!

  • Thanks Larry
  • Posted by davidpaul on November 17, 2006 at 10:10pm EST
  • Larry,

    Thanks for the putdown. I wasn't trying to brag about degrees, but since you brought in up again . . .

    I have heard that if you have a masters, then other people's bachelors don't mean anything to you, or if they have multiple degrees it means nothing to you, as you are superior to them.

    If you have a doctorate, then other (well you get the idea). And if you have a doctorate degree, nobody even checks or asks what your grade point averages were, it is meaningless at that point. So you could be a "C" student with a doctoral degree, and so what, who cares?

    Humorously, you might have heard this before, B.S. means Bull_ _ _ _ degree, M.S. means more of the same, and a Ph.D. means piled higher and deeper.

    Yeah. So please don't think I was trying to act superior by saying I had 3 associates degrees and one bachelors. To me, they are simply proof I paid way too much to learn way too little.

    For what it is worth, I emailed the DA in LA county today, and while it was good for all of us to get our feelings out of our system, this student has nothing to stand on. They agree, simply showing ID would have prevented the whole situation.

    I am not going to quote anyone directly or mention their names, but I really did send the email and really did get a reply back.

    Any one of you could do the same thing.

    And just to tick some of you off, the Constitution does not give you unlimited rights and privileges. Your rights stop right at the point where they infringe on someone else's rights.

    One of our founding fathers (and this would make a good research project for you as students [and maybe some profs too]) said words to this effect: "I am worried about our posterity, and I fear that they will not be able to keep the freedoms that our comrades have died for." That is a poor paraphrase and I admit it, it has been awhile since I did the research.

    There was a bedrock for our constitution, or underpinings as I called them in my paper I wrote over 10 years ago. That foundation was the Judeo-Christian ethic, of which the 10 Commandments are only a short summary of.

    Erase the bedrock, or foundation, and the whole building it is built on crumbles, which is Democracy.

    Once the building crumbles, you have anarchy, which can only be controlled by a police state.

    As someone else here said, maybe we are closer than we realize . . .

  • sic
  • Posted by Michael McIntyre on November 17, 2006 at 10:10pm EST
  • 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.

  • Please Academia...Fight this one
  • Posted by Greg Harris on November 17, 2006 at 10:10pm EST
  • I don't know folks...anybody thats for the police of any type...campus,state,local etc.. using tasers on the non criminally incline pubic is in need of some strong community service...say at least 1,000,000 hours or more. I owned ( 62 years in business) a very successful inner city restaurant that was in a very ghettoized environment and everybody was armed and we had to discount the local police to 'feel' safe from real criminally incline locals such as gangs. However the police really did not care about policing or solving crimes such as gun toting little boys or drugs but more about eating more of our food and coffee. The policing aspect was left and still is up to the community alternative policing group...we citizens... and they hated us for that too.

    Policing has changed over the years and now only angry, power hungry mis guided individuals really want the job and load them with a taser gun and you have a power keg ready to explode. Yet I know some will say...well its a thankless job and somebody has to do it but electrocuting people on the spot because they fail to comply with a direct demand from a peace officer ...wheres the peace in that concept. I feel some of the comments are correct here about conservative right wing people based on America's current political scenario being either angry because change is coming or fear that these minorities or different looking folks might take over and change America into what it should have been from the very beginning....a land for all people Even in those smaller rural communities where...the local sheriffs say “step out of the car boy...you in a heap of trouble” corruption has surfaced of late in New York State and many other states on a massive level with regards to law enforcement.

    How can we turn are eyes away from a totalitarian law enforcement idea and a police state and give peace officers a weapon with the power to kill or torturing causing long term harm...one will 'never' forget a taser shot ; some tasers have up to 900,000 volts in them and have long term detrimental affects on people. To serve and protect.... I recall... 'was' their motto and not having your ID on a college campus...sounds like a little serving needed to help that young man...he was no criminal...for Christ Sake he was a fresh mind, a young learner with a future at a good University....for the love of God...then afterwards one of the officers was threating to taser others for being concerned about his welfare.

    One You tube video I saw before this happen was even worst...a black lady shot for a traffic stop... twice...she fell to the ground...the cop told her to do something....which after a taser shot she unable to...and he shot her again...and repeated his demand....she was no threat to him or the public and the two white males that thought this was fine while laughing and showing me... said “well she fail to comply” and even tired to justify that law enforcement has the right...wheres the crime in a traffic stop. Wheres the crime in forgetting your ID...there are better ways to deal with educated people at a University.....or for that matter in any community. Tasers Guns are dangerous and when in the wrong hands lethal. I hope you educated academic people who have higher degrees recognize the serious wrong here and fight to stop this type of abuse to the public from our law enforcement world.

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

  • Mr. Paul, and Mr. McIntyre
  • Posted by Larry on November 18, 2006 at 11:15am EST
  • Mr. Paul, Emailing a DA, and getting an answer does not define what “the law” is. In fact, I don’t want to break it to you, but DAs frequently take incorrect legal positions. Moreover, in a civil suit in California, the DA won’t be defending the school, nor do they make settlement decisions. (Indeed, I doubt that the DA even saw the complaint that has been filed.) Unfortunately, and I have taken some DAs to task for this – even ones if my own family – they have an extreme distaste for non-lawyers, and will give them a press release instead of legal analysis. This probably is the case here, since most, if not all “excessive force” cases are resolved on “qualified immunity” grounds, and “qualified immunity” is a defense, which must be raised by the defendants. If the DA didn’t go into this issue, it is a sure bet that he is looking down upon you because you are a non-lawyer.
    Secondly, as a practical matter, in academic and legal settings, you probably need a doctorate to be taken seriously. (And amongst some lawyers, a JD is looked down upon.) Everyone else is just a pretender. But, in real life, lawyers find it too hard to talk to people without a legal degree because non-lawyers use too many slogans and don’t do the readings. In academe, people without terminal degrees are considered suspect.

    Third, the constitution doesn’t give anyone “privileges.” In fact, it doesn’t “give” anyone “rights.” It generally restricts the power of government. (Indeed, there are only two specifically-defined legal remedies in the constitution – habeas corpus and “just compensation for takings.)

    So, Mr. Paul, while I admire your support of our constitution, I would urge you, like many true Americans, to go to law school, so you don’t have to send emails to District Attorneys who send you press releases in return.

    Mr. McIntyre, Since you have not pointed to a single substantive error in my post, I will assume that you have conceded all of them. I never spend more than one minute or two writing a post on this board (often I write on planes or trains). I generally do not proofread things, because my time it too valuable to do this. Since I have most Supreme Court cases memorized, there is little need to do research, and when asked I can easily find the citation. I do not use this board to solicit clients.

    Have a nice day.

  • Wha?
  • Posted by B.I.G. on November 18, 2006 at 11:15am EST
  • " .. 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.

  • Posted by Larry on November 18, 2006 at 1:05pm EST
  • Look folks, it is probably a better idea to let the lawsuit play out, then lobbing around accusations that you can’t support. Unless “excessive force,” theories, the law is currently unclear regarding whether a plaintiff can plead a free-standing theory of “racial profiling.”

    BIG, “Assumption of risk” is not a defense to a constitutional tort.

  • No other issue here...
  • Posted by BP on November 18, 2006 at 1:05pm EST
  • 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.

  • Protest at San Quentin, why don't you?
  • Posted by L.L. on November 18, 2006 at 4:10pm EST
  • " .. Congratulations are due to the quick-thinking UCLA students .. block the doors, demand his release, and get those badge numbers .."

    My study group has been reading this dialogue with enormous amusement and laughter. To those courageous, quick-thinking "heroes" -- who flee when faced with actual threats of face-splitting violence -- a mandatory tour of San Quentin prison would be instructive.

    Hearing about how many San Quentin residents are "innocent," with the bone-shattering violence that accompanies, would provide real insight into the U.S. criminal justice system. Very instructive and educational.

    Oh, BTW -- San Quentin residents won't post their "badge numbers" on their clothing. As opposed to real police officers. Ever wonder why, quick-thinking heroes?

    Why anyone would donate $0.01 to this kind of institutionalized anarchy is beyond us.

  • Posted by Larry on November 18, 2006 at 9:30pm EST
  • 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.

  • Irrelevance
  • Posted by Joseph Duemer on November 18, 2006 at 9:35pm EST
  • The sneering irrelevance of comments from the "police state groupies" here is pretty remarkable. First Chappaquiddick & now San Quentin & "splitting faces." Apparently, one is supposed to be impressed with the manliness of these statements, but these apologists for police violence argue like drunken frat boys. If you just say "ACLU" enough times you will win the argument. (I'm already a member of the ACLU, BD, but I think I'll send them another hundred bucks in honor of your argumentative skills & general fascist tendencies. (The joke about the ACLU, by the way, wasn't very good the first time around & the second time you used it--UCLA / ACLU--it had the stink of desperation about it. And FYI, I was not trying to take the moral high ground--no need, since with you & your ilk so happily occupying the low ground, there is simply no place else to stand. Everything is the moral high ground compared to your position in the sewer.

    One thing all these "he got what he deserved" boys have in common is a fascination with violence. They like violence and obviously desire to wield the taser. BD, LL, the rest of you defenders of this atrocity--you guys are just sorry you missed out on the fun at Abu Graib.

  • Final post on this topic
  • Posted by davidpaul on November 19, 2006 at 6:10am EST
  • 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. . .

  • Tasers can kill
  • Posted by selena jo on November 19, 2006 at 6:10am EST
  • I live in WI, and we had a young mentally ill man killed by local police by repeated zaps with a Taser this summer.

    Since I was raped 16 years ago, I carry a taser for protection, but I have zapped myself so that I understood before I used on anyone else its power and pain. And, Christ, does it hurt ! I have never needed it, thankfully.

    These campus officers need better training and oversight to prevent this type of incident from happening.

    I hope the student heals from any trauma either in mind or body.And, he receives justice from UCLA.

  • UCLA Taser - One Cops View
  • Posted by LC , Police Officer at a northstate CSU on November 19, 2006 at 9:10am EST
  • 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

  • Not in this case?
  • Posted by B.D. on November 19, 2006 at 9:15am EST
  • "Tasers can kill"

    Not according to the L.A. Times --

    http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-me-taser18nov18,1,3901386.story

    Just the facts -- but who in the academe cares about those pesky little things?

    So this loser will probably take the taxpayers for $25,000.00 for his temper-tantrum, his lawyer will get $25,000.00, and UCLA will have a million meetings about this. Great.

    And O.J. is getting his own $3,500,000.00 FOX Entertainment special. Life in L.A. -- it goes on.

  • tasers, Paul, and provocation
  • Posted by Larry on November 19, 2006 at 12:30pm EST
  • 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.

  • Thanks Larry
  • Posted by davidpaul on November 19, 2006 at 5:10pm EST
  • Larry,

    Thanks for your kind and balanced and knowledgable words. . .

    I Google my news (I hate watching TV), and only ended up here following a trail of links which all started on Google.

    I guess I got all emotional, and wanted to be a voice for the other side, to help bring everybody towards middle ground.

    I don't really belong on InsideHigherEd, and so I will graciously leave.

    I wish you all the best.

  • So much not the point
  • Posted by Another Professor on November 19, 2006 at 5:10pm EST
  • 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.

    Someone has mentioned that the student "resisted" by saying "don't touch me." Undoubtedly, this was his strategic error. However, that does not CHANGE the officers’ objectives, remove and arrest.

    Tasers HAVE been implicated in deaths in the United States http://tinyurl.com/c9y9k, so they must be considered DEADLY force. So the question is, why is it that these police officers felt it necessary to use DEADLY force to remove and arrest this apparently non-dangerous person? This is pretty much tantamount to torture.

    None of this has anything to do with whether checking his id was right in the first place, or whether he was obnoxious or escalating the situation himself.

    Unless there some pretty clear evidence emerges that this guy was a threat (a DANGER) to the officers or the students AFTER the officers arrived (not just in "what led up"), the use of the Taser, especially the REPEATED use of the Taser is pretty close to the definition of excessive force. Rejecting the designation on some bureaucratic grounds is simple evasion.

  • Posted by Michael at UCLA on November 19, 2006 at 5:10pm EST
  • Hello,

    As a UCLA student, I must say that there are two simple things that I must address:

    1. Should he have shown his ID?

    You will notice that none of the statements released by the UCPD involve the student acting obnoxiously before his ID was checked.

    ID checks are supposedly necessary to prevent people from sneaking in. However, in a competitive university where students are there because they have a test the next morning, it is very obvious when someone is not there for academic purposes.

    I have never in my time at UCLA seen any seriously disruptive people at Powell library, much less the crowds of "urine soaked" vagrants that BD seems to refer to.

    That being said, the posted rule is clear. Considering that random checks are in place, the library at that hour is not the time or location to contest the rule. If he forgot to being his ID, that is his issue, and he should have left without struggling.

    2. Should he have been tased?

    The student was not resisting arrest forcibly. According to witness testimony he was already walking out, though this may or may not be true. If he was not walking out, the UCPD should have dragged him out and gave him a citation, and only if he became physically aggressive would the use of a taser be completely justified.

    However, the reason why most students here at angry is not because he was tased once. The reason is that HE WAS TASED MULTIPLE TIMES, AFTER HE WAS HANDCUFFED, and after he screamed "I have medical conditions!"

    A handcuffed person poses no significant danger to multiple police officers by himself. The crowd around the police officers was not becoming aggressive. I have yet to see an aggressive crowd ask for a policeman's "name and ID number". There were individuals yelling "stop it" at the police officers, but the crowd was neither shouting as a whole nor surging forward unnecessarily. At no point did a police officer have physical contact with any other member of the crowd.

    It is obvious from one policemen's response to other students, namely that they will be tasered too, that the policemen were afraid of a possible uncontrollable crowd. However, this is more of a demonstration of poor training rather than justifiable force. The gathering of crowd is not the same thing as a riot. How can one possibly expect that nobody react to police officers tasering someone multiple times after they were handcuffed?

    Had this been at any other place, there would also have been a crowd of onlookers and there would also have been people asking the police officers to stop. The gathering of the crowd has nothing to do with "anti-establishment" undercurrents.

    Conclusion:

    The student should have been dragged out and cited for his refusal to comply with police officers and with rules in place for random checks. If he did not believe that random ID checks were constitutional, he should file a complaint and not be there after 11 pm. If he believes he was targeted due to his ethnicity (for example if he gets checked every time he is in the library), then should record who checks him each time, file a complaint, etc.

    The police officers were not justified in their use of tasers, especially after the subject was handcuffed. Neither the subject nor the crowd was physically aggressive towards the police officers--for example, no objects thrown, no contact with police officers, no trying to bite or kick police officers by the subject.

    Furthermore, the police officers were not justified in their threats of tasering anyone who "got too close". Witness testimony states that a police officer threatened to tase the person asking for his name and badge number. This is definitely illegal, not to mention a little bit hypocritical considering they were arresting a student for not showing his ID.

  • Another riot-control volunteer?
  • Posted by L.L. on November 19, 2006 at 9:20pm EST
  • " .. Witness testimony states that a police officer threatened to tase the person asking for his name and badge number .."

    This is comedic. In the middle of a near-riot, the rule book is supposed to come out and be followed? Perhaps the author would like to referee street fights between the Crips and the Bloods?

    My friends in Asia have the best solution. Want to protest USA liberals' bizarre treatment of Wal-Mart? Schedule it with the local police, explain how TV cameras will cover it, and let the theatre happen. Tomorrow, the sun rises again.

    Want to be a loud-mouth ying-yang who disses UNIFORMED officers with Glocks and low-voltage Tasers? Let me know -- I'd like to take out some insurance on you.

  • Arm Chair quater backs
  • Posted by TL on November 20, 2006 at 4:25am EST
  • Fist off, I couldn't agree more with LC. LC actually showed a thought process when he wrote his comment. As for all of you negative comment writers, thank god you are not police officers. Most of you talk about rights, but what have you done to preserve them? My guess would be absoulty nothing. When you want to step in a police officers shoes and work the weekends, nights, sacrafice family time, and deal with potentially deadly situations on a daily basis, then be my guest and step up to the plate. Most of you negative comment writers are probably the same people that make negative comments about our military. Thank god we have people that are willing to sacrafice themselves (police/military) so all of you can sit in your nice comfortable chair and complain about everything that is wrong but do nothing to make it better.
    *** As for assistant professor Jeff, your comment surprises me. You think someone with your education would have done their homework. If you did then you would have known that since the taser is a non-lethal weapon, then it makes no sense what so ever that you would use deadly force absent the taser. In a situation where deadly force applies, then you would use just that, deadly force. You would use non-lethal weapons in a non-lethal situation and deadly force in a deadly force situation. One would think that you would have been taught that in commen sense 101***

  • Posted by Larry on November 20, 2006 at 4:30am EST
  • Unfortunately, much of this discussion has involved what people would like to see done to recalcitrant students, or their view of police. Little actually involves the state of the law. Most academics know this is dangerous, because it means that serious matters will be settled based on gut reactions.

    LL, One of the big differences between Asia and the US, is that in the US, there is a constitutional right to “diss” policemen (e.g. Gordon v. Wilson). If a university is hiring thugs that can’t control themselves, that, in itself creates liability under 1983. While staged protests exist in the US, too, the constitution guarantees us a lot more freedom than that. Unfortunately, most students are too busy trying to make a “good impression,” so they rarely exercise it. Perhaps your friends in Asia should try and adopt American-style freedom of expression.

    Whether “random” ID checks are themselves, constitutional, is a gray area. (Especially in a public school.) But, a bigger problem is that they are not truly random, which raises other constitutional problems.

    So, Michael, claiming that a student should be “dragged” out for not showing ID doesn’t answer the question. It is unclear exactly what this ID requirement was. In most places the ID requirement isn’t an ID requirement per se, but rather a requirement that a person simply not be trespassing (and at a public universities, “trespassing” might be necessarily limited). But, whatever the case, it is not clear whether merely refusing to cooperate with a cop is an offensive itself – yet along an offense that warrants “arrest,” or “dragging.”

    Part of the beauty of random ID checks, is that they are rarely challenged in court, so it is difficult to assess their constitutionality. Unfortunately, incidents like this may cause more students to seek declaratory judgments.

  • Educate yourself before speaking
  • Posted by TL on November 20, 2006 at 5:35am EST
  • All you professor types speak before educating yourself(surprise). For the record, tasers are not considered deadly force. Tasers are considered the same level of force as batons and mace. Larry, you must have nothing better to do with your time. Since you like to quote case law so much look up the penal code 148 P.C. That should clear up any confusion you have regarding cooperating with the police, it is a crime.

  • response to TL
  • Posted by Larry on November 20, 2006 at 7:15am EST
  • Tl, The professor types are at least trying to work though a difficult issue. Telling people to “educate themselves” is not that specific, and doesn’t resolve a difficult legal issue. I begged people to provide specific statutes, and they did not. I provided one (off the top of my head) Cal. Pen. Code 148 refers to “delaying or obstructing” officers or EMTs. There is absolute no provisions in there relating to a failure to show ID during any sort of community caretaking function. However, by its own terms it only applies to arrests for certain crimes. When the police are actually investing a crime (i.e. burglary), back in the 1960s someone was arrested for telling a bar patron not to show ID, and that was charged under this statute. Again, off the top of my head this is, People v. Cooks, 58 Cal.Rptr. 550 (1967) – I might have the year wrong. But, a general failure to show ID when not investigating a specific crime is not chargeable under the statute you site.

    Now, whether he was resisting arrest or not is a different story, and whether the cops used excessive force is different, but this is require a close analysis of the evidence, which this board is not the proper forum for.

  • Response to Larry
  • Posted by TL on November 20, 2006 at 8:50am EST
  • Larry, once again you distort the information into your own little way. The professor types are not trying to work through a difficult issue, they only have one opinion and that is their own. By educate, I mean the topic at hand, which is a law enforcement issue. 148 P.C. does NOT relate to any specific crimes it simply states that any person who willfully resists, DELAYS, or OBSTRUCTS a peace officer in the discharge or attempt to discharge ANY duty. Thats sounds pretty simple to me, maybe you should brush up on your law. Until next time.

  • Remembering 'Pigs off campus!'
  • Posted by Joseph A. Haran, Jr. , Alumnus at University of Oregon on November 20, 2006 at 3:10pm EST
  • Unlike some of the contributors to these comments, I have no idea what motivated either the police officers or the student during this incident. Personally, I find use of a Taser reprehensible in the absence of a physical attack; but I'll respect whatever decision is made at U.C.L.A., provided it's reached by administrators and students alike, regarding how people are to be treated on campus.

    Having been at university during the early 1970s, I can't help but recall the tension which then existed between some off-campus law-enforcement agencies and students. As a member of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, I took part in various demonstrations and parades; hence, as you might imagine, I received my share of pepper fog and tear gas.

    This recent incident at U.C.L.A. brings back sad memories of a pre-Taser time, when clubs were the weapon of choice for sheriff's deputies in their dealings with students. Then, we had the American War / Second Indo-China War / Viet Nam War (you pick); whilst now we've the so-called Patriot Act at home, warfare in Afghanistan and Iraq, plus the so-called "war on terror" being prosecuted both at home and abroad.

    In the absence of military conscription, comparatively few students see fit to publicly demonstrate against the Second Iraq War and thus corporate mainstream communication media are deprived of sensational news; consequently, a relatively-minor incident such as took place at U.C.L.A. gets lots of attention and is extrapolated to cover all manner of grievances imagined or real. No matter: Pain is universal, power is frequently wielded indiscriminately and those who pull the strings are smug in their isolation from it all.

  • Posted by Larry on November 20, 2006 at 6:55pm EST
  • TL, Claiming that I “distort” the information does not hep matters, nor does insulting me or other people. Granted, of course, in legal disputes everyone accuses everyone of distorting the law, so I guess this is par for the course. But, to say that such a legal matter is simple, well, oversimplfies things.

    148(a), by my rough count, has been subject to quantitatively more reported 1st amendment challenges then any other penal section.

    Read the limitations provisions in Cal.Penal Code § 148 again. Sec. (a)(1) This only applies to the “lawful” exercise of a police officer’s duties, and to sustain a conviction under this statute, one must prove that the police officer was, in fact, acting lawfully.

    In a 1983 action arising in which the defendant claimed that he was the victim of “excessive force” and he plead “no contest” to a 148(a)(1) charge, the 9th Circuit, held that without proof of the lawfulness of the defendant-turned-plaintiff’s actions, the conviction cannot stand. The California courts have similarly held that In California, the lawfulness of an arrest is an essential element of the offense of resisting or obstructing a peace officer. Susag v. City of Lake Forest, 115 Cal.Rptr.2d 269 (2002). Recent caselaw has gone even further, holding that a defendant that said “[d]on't let'em do it! They don't have a search warrant," and "[t]hat's f*****ed up, those pigs can't do that without a search warrant," Resek v. City of Huntington Beach, 41 Fed.Appx. 57 (9th Cir. 2002), constituted behavior protected by the constitution and was therefor not a crime (and, in this case, the cop’s decision to arrest the person under 148(a) was so egregious that not even qualified immunity could protect him from a liability under 1983.)

    Good faith mistakes by the officer regarding what is lawful would result in no conviction, but, so long as they are reasonable, would be a defense to a 1983 action.

  • Posted by TL on November 21, 2006 at 4:30am EST
  • Larry, I only insult people that have insulted others first, especially when they think they are better than everyone else becasue they have an "education" (I tend to stand up to people like that). For the first time I agree with just a portion of what you said. Obviously, the police officer needs to show a lawful excercise and act lawfully, I guess I just assumed that was common knowledge. You are quouting case law but, that really isn't the same situation that we have here. As a citizen you can pretty much say anything you want, as long it is not in a threatening manner. The issue that we have here is that the student PHYSICALLY delayed and obstructed a police officer in his duties. And yes, even going limp is considered physically delaying. I disagree with you about the simplicity of the matter. This is very simple, the police were acting with in the scope of their duties when checking ID'S. Wether checking ID's or not is constitutional, that is what is so great about this country, a jury will decide. Once the officers gave a clear and direct order and had to PHYSICALLY touch him in order to carry out their duties, the student had an obligation to comply. By him not complying physically, the officer then had the option to raise the level of force, that being the taser. The officers can be heard several times telling him to stand up before the student was tased. Officers have the right to protect themselves and not place themselves in a stituation where physical harm is imminent. NO matter what the outcome of this case is, the simple fact that the student did not produce ID and then refused to leave the library pretty much sums it up, obey the RULES and this wouldn't have happened.**** By the way the whole reason behind checking ID'S is for the safety of the students and even those professor types that our so thankful.****

  • to tase or not to tase
  • Posted by Nate , "your gonna get tased too" at my brain on November 21, 2006 at 4:30am EST
  • "Get back over there or your gonna get tased too." At the end of the video of the incident, a police officer says this to a man in a white T-shirt. (watch the video)The man was just standing there and before that he was talking to another police officer. I dont know under what circumstances an officer may use the taser gun, however, this officer makes it sound like this is one of those circumstances.
    I dont wish to comment on the incident with the first student because you have all done such a good job. The officer at the end of the video is what troubles me (among other things). If it was lawful or within policy for the officer to use the taser against the student in the white shirt, what does it say about the policy? If it was not lawful, what does it say about those officers involved that roam the campus?

  • limp people
  • Posted by Larry on November 21, 2006 at 8:05am EST
  • TL, I actually searched Westlaw for this, and I can’t find a single California case where anyone was ever convicted for “going limp.” (I tried a number of synonyms, too.) The closest I could find was an unpublished case, In re Danny S., 2002 WL 1331739 (Cal. App. 5) which notes “In most cases, section 148 has been applied to physical acts, such as fleeing from a proper investigatory detention by a police officer, brandishing a gun at an officer, passively resisting an arrest or going limp, or struggling physically with an officer making an arrest.” However, no specifics are cited there, and the California Supreme Court summarily granted review of it, and remanded it.

    The closest case that supports your point is In re Bacon, 240 Cal.App.2d 34, 49 Cal.Rptr. 322 (Cal.App. 1 Dist. Feb 08, 1966). This California case, which, although often cited and questioned for other reasons contains the following language that “The Magistrate's Court of the City of New York in discussing this and companion cases stated as follows: ‘[T]hese defendants wilfully engaged in resisting police officers who were properly exercising their duties. Passive resistance is nevertheless resistance.” However, this was not a “conviction” but rather a juvenile proceeding in California, as they had in the 1960s. Unfortunately, this case, which wouldn’t bind a California court today doesn’t actually deal with the issue.

    The reason I am so concerned about this, is that most police can claim that an uncooperative person physically hindered them. This is an awfully broad bush, in which everyone and anyone, by not doing what a cop might want, would be violating the statute.

    A couple other states have held that merely going “limp” cannot, as a matter of law, be “resisting” arrest nor can it qualify under their “obstruction” or “resisting arrest” statutes

    There is another wrinkle to this matter, however. In most states, individual have a right to resist even lawful arrests, where the cop uses excessive force. See, e.g., Gray v. State, 463 P2d 897(Alaska 1970).

    I don’t really know what “happened” in this incident, and because the best evidence I have is a youtube video, I am going to reserve judgment on the facts. It may be that the cop acted properly – and constitutionally. Or he may have been powertripping. This will come up in the wash.

    Juries will not decides the constitutionality of ID checks. This is purely a legal matter and beyond the competence of a jury. It will be decided, at some point by judges, and that will be the end of it, absent a constitutional amendment.

  • Posted by TL on November 22, 2006 at 4:20am EST
  • Larry, I can assure that people have been arrested and convicted of going limp. It only makes case law if the defendant and the attorney decide to appeal the matter and take it all the way up. Citizens have also been convicted of less in regards to 148. Simply not obeying a lawful order (eg passing through a permiter)would be enough for an arrest under 148. You cite that 148 applies to physical acts such as, going limp. That is absoultly correct. Police are expected to maintain order and 148 PC helps them to do just that. With out that it would be pretty difficult for police officers to carry out their duties and if that were to happen then the citizens would complain about police not doing their jobs. Police officers have a tough job and it is near impossible to make everyone happy. Again the bottom line is, if a police officer gives you a lawful order, obey it or you may be arrested.

  • Posted by Larry on November 22, 2006 at 7:15am EST
  • The police are expected to do many things. I don’t know if “maintaining order” is one of them. In my world it was “investigating crime” and “protecting individuals.” Perhaps this is just a fundamental difference between our cultures. I see the police as protecting individuals, and you see them as protecting society. But hey, differences are what America is about, and why most families I know require their kids to go to law school.

    Unfortunately, just because a statute says one thing does not mean that all interpretations of it are constitution, or even enforceable. Unfortunately, legislators have been known to write statute that are mostly unenforceable. (Actually there are quite a few of them.)

    While police officers do have a “tough” job, so do many people. In fact, there are very few people I know who would say they don’t have a tough job. Unfortunately, the toughness of their job does not indicate a change in the penal code’s operative enforcement. At best, the “toughness” of ONE police officer’s job (not cops in general) factors into a “qualified immunity” analysis. But under no means does the fact that a cop chose to become a cop result in an change in our laws.

    Of course, only same cases result in a reported appellate opinion. Though, I would have expected you to come up with at least some adult convictions that resulted in a published appellate opinion. People are arrested all the time for all sorts of reasons. Whether it is for “going limp” or some other reason is a different story. Since this crime is a misdemeanor it likely that greater charges are dismissed in return for a guilty plea to this crime. (As a practical matter, prosecutors are unwilling to charge crimes like this alone, but I don’t expect you to rely on my experience.)

    There biggest problem with prosecuting statutes like this, is that there are serious constitutional problems with prosecuting non-action. Can someone really be required to undertake some volitional act? What constitutes “enough” non-limpness, etc. Likewise, believe it or not, there are vagaries regarding the point at which a person is “arrested.” All this on top of the more important issue: what is a lawful order. So, for this reason, unless there is more (and it might be slightly more – like hitting an officer – or messing with his gun), these things just are not prosecuted.

    Instead, it is much easier to prosecute people for actually undertaking a volitional act.

  • Posted by TL on November 22, 2006 at 8:55am EST
  • Larry, I don't know what world your from but maintaining order is what police work is all about. By investigating crimes, protecting individuals, working traffic control, and catching the suspected bad guy etc... does exactly that, maintain order to keep the citizens as safe as possible. With out the law there would be no order, I think that makes sense to common folks. By the way, police officers protect individuals and the society as a whole. Most families I know require their kids to serve in the milatry and give something back to this country that is so great.

    How many jobs that you know of require you to make a split second decision to make a life or death call? How many jobs do you punch in at and encounter people that want to cause you bodily harm. Problably can only think of a few, right Larry. Obviously you are many of the people that take that for granted.

    Thanks for clearing up the confusion that people are arrested for all sorts of reasons. I don't rely on your exprience because it is obvious that it is inncorrect. For the record, just about every 148 PC arrest(alone with no other charges) result in a conviction. I am not sure what county you worked in but this is pretty much the standard in my world.

    Just so you know, if you "mess" with an officers gun, we will probably be attending your funeral. If you haven't figured it out, all your legal talk doesn't impress me. If you also haven't figured it out, I am very much a part of the legal system. So, for this reason, these things ARE prosecuted. Have a great thanksgiven, until next time.

  • the role of the state, and 148
  • Posted by Larry on November 22, 2006 at 10:00am EST
  • TL, The proper role of the state, and, by implication, the proper role of those who work for the state is a deep philosophical question. True, there are those who take your view. There are also those tho think that the state should, if anything, just enforce contracts. The extent to which these dueling polarities have made it into our law is also a matter of perspective.

    As to your statement that “without law there would be no order,” quite a bit of jurisprudence can be summarized as “without order there can be no law.” Whatever the case, while I may agree with your analysis on some of these issues, you are leaping over the big questions that have plagued (or challenged) western legal philosophy, and resulted in lots of law review articles. Depending on your reading of the constitution, it supports one view or the other, or alternates between the two.

    Strangely enough this is why it is the custom in my family to require all children to become lawyers (and cast out the non-lawyers): so that they can answer these questions in meaningful ways.

    Lots of people think there job is hard. My secretary does. “Life and death calls” are made every day by a variety of people. (E.g. doctors, lawyers, engineers) Strangely, most are paid more than cops, and their working conditions are much nicer. Because cops are paid so much less, society seems to value them less. If you disagree, take it up with your legislature.

    Since neither of us is giving proof of their observations about conviction rates or plea bargains (and, I did spend six months prosecuting misdemeanors -- and I never secured a conviction based solely on charge of violating the analgous statute -- and I did "no paper" a few of them), I don’t think anyone is going to convince anyone of anything.

    Finally, the statute you cited has specific provisions for attempts to “mess” with a gun (e.g. touching the holster). There is no provision for the death penalty.

  • "random search" is the root cause!
  • Posted by linuxlouis on November 30, 2006 at 3:40pm EST
  • Besides the ranting I'm about to engage in, I also offer a solution and point out the root cause problem.

    I) Root cause - therein an established 'random search' is the problem. This leaves an infinite flexibility for anyone of any power holding position - this scenario law enforcement in particular - the luxury of exercsing 'law?' at will and using the accepted status quo to their advantage and usually to the victim's disadvantage; as we've seen here.

    II) Solution - Get rid of the B.S. 'random search!' OR make it a 'random search with probable cause!' (that to address the drunk/disorderly/etc... at the library who shouldn't be there) OR make a rule that at 11:30 p.m. ALL present people in the library, MUST exit and re-enter scanning their ID, to allow re-admittance!

    THIS IS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE.

    III) As at least a few posters to this thread have pointed out, this young man, had done no wrong, NOR, did he present ANY type of danger! The fact that the police are stating "we didn't know what he had on him... blah blah blah" that's a diversion and evasive technique in poor attempt to justify their obvious WRONG DOING. By them making that statement, they can just as easy say that "we don't know what his close proximity fellow student had on them, so we also had to tase them too." THIS IS BULL-SHIIIIIT.

    This event was clearly an infringement upon another of my fellow US citizens constitutional rights. We have every right to not present our ID when asked, UNLESS there is reason to believe that the person in question has done something wrong OR is about to do something wrong. And the last time I checked people, 'not providing your student ID, IS NOT A CRIME!' Also, this is a chicken and egg problem, in that 'well, he did nothing wrong, next, he rightfully doesn't provide his ID upon request, now he's getting tasered and is at the mercy of a law enforcement agent, who clearly doesn't understand anything about the 'real law' and only understands very basic and superficial law, in the magnitude of: traffic violations, misdemeanors, and things of this nature.' SO WHERE, pray, and how, can anyone justify the officers behavior? YOU CAN'T!

  • Posted by Jason at DND on December 11, 2006 at 5:05am EST
  • i keep reading where people are refering to rights and freedoms. The right not to show ID. The Right to not Comply With the Authoritive Figures.

    As was stated before there is a policy that the UCLA police force may make random I.D. Checks. a 5 year student should know this. Any and all persons entering that library gives up their right to refuse showing ID.

    The choice is simple, either agree to the terms set down by the College or walk away.

    Did they use excessive force?
    that is a 2 sided question. 5 Times is excessive from this point of view. but we were not there. However being Tazered is not excessive Force.

    The Steps of Force are as follows

    1)Presence:The officers were there
    2)Verbal Warning: The Officers told him to leave, to stand up etc
    3)Restraints:Flex Cuffs, Hand Cuffs
    4)Open hand techniques: He Went Limp when they tried to grab him
    5)Non lethal Weapons:Peper spray, Asp Batons, Tazers
    6)Deadly Force: Guns

    As for people saying he stood up to leave, just as many say he did no such thing, so until it can be verrified, its pure speculation

    The Officers followed the steps up to and includeing Non Leathal Weapons. It should also be noted that Officers are trained to always respond with one force higher than that used against them.

    so as one person stated that the officers should have been tazered. Had someone pulled out a Tazer, the officers would have been justified in pulling their guns.

    Just something to Remember.

    Too Many people are consumed with their personl freedoms and rights that they feel slighted by anything that they perceive as an act of control against them. There is no such thing as pure freedom, that myfriends is Anarchy. Freedoms are kept in check by rules and regulations so that other people may enjoy the same freedoms that you enjoy. people have to realize that Officers, while not above the Law, do enforce the law, and weather or not you belive in it, if you wish to live in a "free" country you must abide by it. Dont like the laws, get them changed.