UCLA campus police torture student, in the library

[Evo]

How many times do the police, the onlookers, and other people in this discussion need to say to you, "he was passive resisting, not active resisting" before it sinks in? He was not kicking anyone or making any resistive bodily movements. He was going limp. STOP REPEATING THINGS ABOUT HOW HE COULD HURT THE OFFICERS. HE WAS NOT DOING SO. IT WAS PASSIVE RESISTANCE. END OF STORY ABOUT THAT. I'm sorry for yelling, it's just that I have seen claims of how he "might have" actively resisted so many times it is very exasperating. One thing that all onlookers agree, police included, is that he was passive resisting, not active or aggressive resisting.

It doesn't matter, like I said, if he's refusing arrest, they have to take forcible action to remove him. They took the action least likely to get anyone hurt. There is no telling what anyone that crazy is likely to do next. If he became violent, then more aggressive measures would have been needed.

Also, I found a website where his fellow students posted links to some of his essays. I can't link to them because he states on every page they are not for viewing without his permission. This guy has hostile/violent tendencies and has a persecution complex. This guy was just waiting for an opportunity to do something like this.

 

[russ_watters]

Orthodontist, how does that matter? Passive resistance is still resistance and still requires force to overcome. Whether it is carrying him out or 'motivating' him to stop resisting, force is required. And when someone is already resisting, you don't know exactly how much they will resist - you don't know if they will start kicking if you go for their legs, for example. He was already belligerant, so it wouldn't be a big step for him to take.

This is not unlike when hippies chain themselves to trees or block roads - they need to be forceably removed from the area. From what I have seen, police are more inclined to use motivation than they are to physically carry people away (sometimes pepper spray, sometimes stun guns/tasers). I'm fine with that. What is your reasoning for not being ok with that? Is it simply that you'd prefer they carry him? Sorry, but it just isn't realistic to have that in the policy. Police need to protect themselves and carrying people away is dangerous - whether it would or wouldn't have resulted in a physical altercation here or not.

 

[0rthodontist]

What is your reasoning for not being ok with that? Is it simply that you'd prefer they carry him? Sorry, but it just isn't realistic to have that in the policy.

Oh, it's not realistic? Why then is it in the Las Vegas PD's policy, then, along with a lot of other sensible and strongly worded anti-torture rules? (I am using the word "torture" here in the sense of cruelty to those who can't defend themselves, not in the sense of political or military torture for information).

It treats human beings as cattle. It is a very fundamental rule of civilization--maybe the fundamental rule of civilization--that the way to get someone to do something is not to keep physically hurting them until they do it. Frankly it disgusts me. Coercion by pain is the principle behind bullying and political torture. It is the principle behind warfare and spousal abuse. It is called naked aggression.

 

[Math Is Hard]

Bar of soap for you!

agreed. Ten hours in the lab on a Saturday makes me a little grumpy. But still...

 

[chroot]

It is a very fundamental rule of civilization--maybe the fundamental rule of civilization--that the way to get someone to do something is not to keep physically hurting them until they do it.

Is it really any better to tie the person up and then, once bound, physically force them to do what you want them to do? Is that really any more... civilized? This business about "fundamental rules of civilization" sounds pretty much like posturing to me.

Frankly it disgusts me.

Your objections to the stun gun are not rational. They're tied up with all kinds of opinions on irrelevant topics like torture, bullying and other psychological trauma. You've already admitted that this isn't torture, but you seem to be coming back, again and again, to arguments that are almost wholly dependent upon it.

I'd be willing to entertain the notion that indiscriminate use a stun gun could put one on a "slippery slope" leading to more severe examples of police brutality. I agree that significant thoughts and policies are needed to prevent that from happening. I disagree strongly that this is an example of "severe" police brutality, or that it should be compared to torture, even if you wish to pervert the word torture to include anything potentially damaging to the "spirit."

- Warren

 

[0rthodontist]

Is it really any better to tie the person up and then, once bound, physically force them to do what you want them to do? Is that really any more... civilized? This business about "fundamental rules of civilization" sounds pretty much like posturing to me.

You don't "force them to do what you want them to do" at all. You concede to them their free will. That's the point. If the man were simply carried outside, he would not have been actually doing anything against his will.

Your objections to the stun gun are not rational. They're tied up with all kinds of opinions on irrelevant topics like torture, bullying and other psychological trauma. You've already admitted that this isn't torture, but you seem to be coming back, again and again, to arguments that are almost wholly dependent upon it.

Look up torture in a dictionary, and you will see that there are several meanings. I agree that this situation is not identical with political torture, but it is fully consistent with other senses of the word torture.

But though this example is not identical with political torture, both this example of torture and political torture are coercion by pain. As are the other things I mentioned.


I am not making any kind of slippery slope argument. It is not that the tasering is likely to lead to worse abuses; the tasering is awful enough as it is. "Drive stun" is a weapon that does not affect the central nervous system and whose only purpose is to cause pain to someone who is immobilized or nearly immobilized.

 

[chroot]

You don't "force them to do what you want them to do" at all. You concede to them their free will. That's the point. If the man were simply carried outside, he would not have been actually doing anything against his will.

You have to be kidding me. Are you really so interested in arguing for the sake of arguing that you are now trying to convince that being tied up and physically dragged out of a building is an example of exercising free will? You have to be kidding!

The student wanted to remain inside the building even though he broke the rule and didn't have his ID. That was his free will!

Sometimes I really get the feeling that you just really, really like arguing, and will continue to change your position as frequently as possible to make sure that you never agree with anyone.

But though this example is not identical with political torture, both this example of torture and political torture are coercion by pain. As are the other things I mentioned.

It's not torture. It's not bullying. It's not psychological trauma. It's a stupid kid who didn't want to follow a rule being made to follow a rule. That's all it is.

- Warren

 

[chroot]

"Drive stun" is a weapon that does not affect the central nervous system and whose only purpose is to cause pain to someone who is immobilized or nearly immobilized.

Wait a minute... weren't you saying that stun guns should never be used against immobilized subjects? The purpose of the drive stun is, indeed, to cause pain -- just enough pain, hopefully, to make the subject think better of his choice to resist the police over something as stupid as a student ID card.

I want you to admit something right here and now:

All of the other options available to the police -- dragging him out bodily, handcuffing him, hitting him with billy clubs, etc. -- presented at least some danger of serious physical injury.

The one course of action available to them which did not present a danger of serious injury (exceptions for pregnant women aside) -- the one which inflicts only pain -- was the one they used. Doesn't that seem most sensible?

- Warren

 

[JasonRox]

You have to be kidding me. Are you really so interested in arguing for the sake of arguing that you are now trying to convince that being tied up and physically dragged out of a building is an example of exercising free will? You have to be kidding!

The student wanted to remain inside the building even though he broke the rule and didn't have his ID. That was his free will!

Sometimes I really get the feeling that you just really, really like arguing, and will continue to change your position as frequently as possible to make sure that you never agree with anyone.



It's not torture. It's not bullying. It's not psychological trauma. It's a stupid kid who didn't want to follow a rule being made to follow a rule. That's all it is.

- Warren

Anyone who is still standing in this thread likes arguing. I don't see your point with regards to that.

 

[0rthodontist]

You have to be kidding me. Are you really so interested in arguing for the sake of arguing that you are now trying to convince that being tied up and physically dragged out of a building is an example of exercising free will? You have to be kidding!

Maybe I was not clear enough. The distinction is this:

If you are physically restrained and moved somewhere, you are not coerced into making any decisions you did not want to make. Your free will is in that respect preserved. It's true that the choices you can physically make are then restricted, but from those very limited choices you may do whatever you like.

If you are coerced into doing something, it's not just that physical circumstances rule out certain choices for you. It's actually that someone has forced your decision for you; through pain, they have forced you to act in the way they would like. That's a fundamental violation of your free will itself, not just of the physical circumstances that it is constrained to act within.

 

[chroot]

If you are physically restrained and moved somewhere, you are not coerced into making any decisions you did not want to make. Your free will is in that respect preserved. It's true that the choices you can physically make are then restricted, but from those very limited choices you may do whatever you like.

If you decided you were going to stay in the library, regardless of the rule you knew you were breaking, then that was the conclusion of your free decision making process. If you were then ejected from the library, by any means whatsoever, your free will was violated. You were forced by someone else to do something other than that which you wanted to do.

It's actually that someone has forced your decision for you; through pain, they have forced you to act in the way they would like.

Do you not realize I could make the exact same argument in the opposite way?

If you really wanted to stay in the library, you could overcome the stun gun's pain and stay, regardless of how badly it hurts. You still have the free will to respond (or not) to the pain. No one's actually making you leave the building, so your free will remains intact.

However, if you are physically tied up and dragged out of the building, then there's no way at all for you to do what you want to do. You were forced by someone else to leave the building, even though that wasn't your decision. Your free will has been stolen from you.

Besides, kiddo.. really... do you think people who break laws deserve have their free will so respected? I'm sure plenty of murderers would really prefer to not be in prison. Should their right to free will be taken into consideration?

You are really, really struggling here. Just give it up.

- Warren

 

[JasonRox]

If you decided you were going to stay in the library, regardless of the rule you knew you were breaking, then that was the conclusion of your free decision making process. If you were then ejected from the library, by any means whatsoever, your free will was violated. You were forced by someone else to do something other than that which you wanted to do.



Do you not realize I could make the exact same argument in the opposite way?

If you really wanted to stay in the library, you could overcome the stun gun's pain and stay, regardless of how badly it hurts. You still have the free will to respond (or not) to the pain. No one's actually making you leave the building, so your free will remains intact.

However, if you are physically tied up and dragged out of the building, then there's no way at all for you to do what you want to do. You were forced by someone else to leave the building, even though that wasn't your decision. Your free will has been stolen from you.

Besides, kiddo.. really... do you think people who break laws deserve have their free will so respected? I'm sure plenty of murderers would really prefer to not be in prison. Should their right to free will be taken into consideration?

You are really, really struggling here. Just give it up.

- Warren

Comparing this incident to murderers?! What the hell? That's really low.

That's like comparing Bush to Hitler.

Lame.

 

[chroot]

Comparing this incident to murderers?! What the hell? That's really low.

I didn't compare this incident to murder. I expanded Orthodontist's thoughts on the free will of criminals to include all criminals.

Do you have anything of substance to add to this discussion? Do you intend to actually read and comprehend the arguments being made?

- Warren

 

[0rthodontist]

Yes, you could make the argument the opposite way, if you felt that physical options are more important than the sanctity of will.

Imprisoned murderers have not been coerced into doing anything they don't choose to. They have been physically restricted, but they have not been coerced. Their will, vile as it is, is still their own. Imprisonment does not have any impact on the fact of one's free will. It reduces the choices available, but not the will itself. A man in a cell has just as much free will as a man in a meadow--he just has fewer things to do with that will.

Just give it up.

You know, I would like to give up on this discussion. When I watch that video, I see a couple of police attacking a man who was not fighting back and who, partway through, said he would leave. I see an overwhelming force that could have easily and safely carried or dragged the student out of the library, but instead chose to torture him with a weapon whose sole purpose is to inflict pain, for the crime of forgetting his card. It just blows my mind that anyone thinks those officers could have be doing the right thing. I don't like this discussion.

 

[chroot]

Imprisoned murderers have not been coerced into doing anything they don't choose to.

Imprisoned murderers have been forced by other people (one way or another) to live in a prison cell. They certainly didn't choose to live there. This nicely explains all the escape attempts mounted every year.

A man in a cell has just as much free will as a man in a meadow--he just has fewer things to do with that will.

I think you may be alone in that argument. It doesn't even make any sense.

I don't like this discussion.

Then stop prolonging it.

- Warren

 

[Moonbear]

**tiptoes in and braves the wrath of Chroot**
This "discussion" seems to be just repeating the same points over and again at this point. This is what I call an impasse, and so I have locked the thread.