UCLA campus police torture student, in the library

[Knavish]

Gelsamel Epsilon,

How can it be "informative but not particularly credible"? If not credible, it's not informative.

If credible, the story offers insight into the nature of the victim--in particular, if he exacerbated or even provoked the situation. "I like to find the most difficult solutions to the simplest of problems," he prides himself. Indeed, difficult solutions are often the most revealing. But the case here is different. Here, he found a solution to a problem he himself created.Here are the main questions (ignoring the personal account):
(1) Did the victim comply (even perhaps grudgingly); or did he not, and if so, was he physically unable to?
(2) How concerned, in general, should the police be of strangers in the library? How immediate and how severe is the threat?
(3) What warrants the use of a taser?

In other words: (1) what did the victim do; (2) how is the environment; (3) taking together the victim's response and environment, was the use of a taser justified? I find these to be the three main points of contention.

 

[Gelsamel Epsilon]

It's informative because the crux of the post is what people have been saying here. Therefore even if the person isn't one of the people who knows the 'victim' etc. it still adds to the argument (of the stuns not being painfull etc.) because one more person said it. However it may not be credible, just like previous arguments, this however does increase this argument's credibility slightly.

Like previously stated the nature of the victim is irrelevent. However the main questions you linked are.

Did the victim comply? In the Video he said multiple times that he would leave. However he could be lying, the police suggested he continued being limp, and suggested that someone being tased would be capable of walking out.

The first part of your 2nd question doesn't matter too much. That's more a question of why the rule is there in the first place. As for the second part according to the news sources the student was asked to leave before by campus officials and when he wouldn't leave they called in the police. So it's obvious it wasn't immediate as there was time transpiring before the police arrived.

And 3, according to Russ's link the 'guideline' for using a taser (Or if you don't want to piss of Chroot, a Stun Baton) is when the subject is actively resisting (kicking failing and attacking people). However the police report suggests that he was passively resisting "he went limp". Of course, these are just guidelines.

 

[Gza]

"Muslim" this or "racism" that have played only a small role in this discussion--you're attacking a strawman. The point that seems blindingly obvious to me is that verbal abuse heaped on a police officer should never influence their decisions about the use of force. I'm hearing some arguments which seem to contradict this, things that sound suspiciously like "he was a jerk, he deserved it." He sure was a jerk, but that alone (verbal abuse) should never influence how much force is used in anyone's arrest.

To tell you the truth, I've read very little of this discussion in GD. But I HAVE seen the video (2 different ones actually) and read a few accounts of the incident in the official UCLA newspaper. And from reading your post, I can tell that you have very little experience in dealing with law enforcement (not a bad thing mind you.) All I'm doing is asking you to please remove yourself from your ivory throne of judicial discretion, and accept the fact that you do not have all the fact of what exactly happened, and who said what (neither do i,) nor were you in the situation, and cannot make a reasonable judgement of what should have been the course of action. From the evidence presented, he was given a number of opportunities to present his identification, or even claim that he didn't have it, but was still attending the university (a claim that is not exactly that hard to prove.) Instead he decided to make a scene/political statement, and get a rise out of the students in the library (which isn't hard given the liberal nature of most university campuses.)

 

[Knavish]

"However it may not be credible. . . this however does increase this argument's credibility slightly." What?

I am speaking of the anecdotal insight given by that report; not the factual trivia.

The nature of the victim is utterly relevant and is intertwined with question (1).

Question (2) is to crucial importance, despite its being subjective. Airport security and library security are on two different levels.

At any rate, I'm going to bed now. I'll be back tomorrow.

 

[Gelsamel Epsilon]

Lets say 1 person, who may or may not be credible makes a claim X. You have no idea whether claim X is credible or even possible. However if 100 people claim X it adds to the claim, and the people's credibility. So in essence each person who agrees with a claim that you don't know whether is credible or not increases it's credibility. Of course, that doesn't mean that they're right (or even credible, it just adds a higher possibility that they're credible (although it may be very small amounts).

Also the nature of the subject may per-chance be the cause of question 1 but it is definitely not relevant when assessing what amount of force is suitable. The amount of force which is suitable should be assessed on the actions (which may be caused by his nature) but not his nature directly.

I'll say it again; Just because someone is a dickhead doesn't mean you can shoot them, and have it be more ethically correct then shooting a nice person.

And that is what is in question here, the amount of force they used.

 

[0rthodontist]

To tell you the truth, I've read very little of this discussion in GD. But I HAVE seen the video (2 different ones actually) and read a few accounts of the incident in the official UCLA newspaper. And from reading your post, I can tell that you have very little experience in dealing with law enforcement (not a bad thing mind you.) All I'm doing is asking you to please remove yourself from your ivory throne of judicial discretion, and accept the fact that you do not have all the fact of what exactly happened, and who said what (neither do i,) nor were you in the situation, and cannot make a reasonable judgement of what should have been the course of action. From the evidence presented, he was given a number of opportunities to present his identification, or even claim that he didn't have it, but was still attending the university (a claim that is not exactly that hard to prove.) Instead he decided to make a scene/political statement, and get a rise out of the students in the library (which isn't hard given the liberal nature of most university campuses.)

Who knows if he said he had forgotten his ID but was really a student, or not? You as well as I do not know what happened in the events leading up to his arrest.

But that's not really my point. Instead, I'm arguing that making a scene is not in itself grounds for the use of any additional force. It should be completely irrelevant to the actions of the officers, whether the student was insulting them or reciting nursery rhymes or not speaking at all. The actions of the police officers must be judged solely on what, physically, happened. The student's "scene/political statement" does not even bear mentioning with regard to whether the officers' actions were justified; it has no bearing on it. Only the student's motions (in this case, going limp and refusing to move) should be relevant to the actions of an officer.

 

[Anttech]

Funny, talk about robots to the rules :)

In Europe we usually poke fun out of the Germans, for there ruthless systematic following of rules, without any consideration to the human side of issues. Seems that *some* people here are worse than there German Cousins.

If those 'rentacops' at UCLA had any Emotional intelligence what so every they could have defused that situation. Rather their inability to persuade the young student to go get his ID card, inevitably meant that they resorted to what they knew best... Bash him around, until he hurts so much he will comply!

YOU MUST COMPLY...Exterminate all that do not comply *said with darlek voice*

 

[acm]

Nice to see the cops doing their job for once.

EDIT: Upon watching it again, I agree with Evo and Chroot.

 

[JasonRox]

Nice to see the cops doing their job for once.

EDIT: Upon watching it again, I agree with Evo and Chroot.

Lots of others don't agree with them.

I'm sure if there were a poll publicly, the majority would be against it. Atleast most Canadians would be. Not sure how the average American would see this, but it seems like more would be against it too.

 

[Anttech]

I'm sure if there were a poll publicly, the majority would be against it. Atleast most Canadians would be. Not sure how the average American would see this, but it seems like more would be against it too.

The Physics Forum focus group

75% of the global population agree that the police were heavy handed

 

[NateTG]

Lets say 1 person, who may or may not be credible makes a claim X. You have no idea whether claim X is credible or even possible. However if 100 people claim X it adds to the claim, and the people's credibility. So in essence each person who agrees with a claim that you don't know whether is credible or not increases it's credibility. Of course, that doesn't mean that they're right (or even credible, it just adds a higher possibility that they're credible (although it may be very small amounts).

100,000,000 flies eat ****. Heck, in the 1940's I could have found a whole lot of interesting notions about Jews in Germany (or, I'm sure, Japanese in the US).

If 100 people arrive at the same conclusion in a reasonable and independant fashion, it does lend credence to something. However, when 100 people who are ill-informed and emotionally provoked come to a conclusion it really only lends credence to the fundamental truth that people are full of it.

 

[dontdisturbmycircles]

I don't have time to read all the posts but I'll post my thoughts on the video. The kid was asking for it. He starts out by screaming DON'T TOUCH ME, err it's the cops, they have the right to be able to remove you from private property if you can't prove you have the right to be there, and resisting will be met by force. Although I can't tell if they warned him before they tazed him the first time, but I am guessing they did. If they didn't warn him that they were going to taze him, then it was inappropriate. If they gave him warning, its his own damned fault. After the first taze, anyone with half a brain would cooperate, why was he so emotional? Was the 3 minutes of study time that he would lose running to get his ID card worth resisting over? jeebus

 

[Mk]

I give that guy some credit for standing up to all those shocks.

Tasers are weapons that fire electrode-tipped darts connected to the gun by wires; the device can only be used once, and they are not used simply to stun, or disperse people. They are used to completely incapacitate a person, usually leaving him/her unconscious for several minutes.

In the new ones I believe as long as the target does not remove the electrodes an officer can hit him multiple times.

Was it a taser or a stun gun?

 

[SpaceTiger]

Having watched the video, I find it hard to judge for myself whether or not excessive force was used. Most of what it captures is the audio exchange, which is mostly just the police officers telling him to get up.

The students standing up front would have the clearest view of the scene and they seemed to think the force used was unnecessary. Unless they're part of some elaborate setup or were close friends of the victim, I see no reason not to believe them. That the offending student wasn't maximally cooperative, used poor judgement, or "went limp" don't seem particularly relevant to me, since the issue is whether or not they used excessive force, not whether or not the student was an idiot. IMO, university police shouldn't be resorting to tasers or stun guns unless they're in actual physical danger from the suspect. I have no idea what the regulations are for a situation like this, but if "stand up or be stunned" is part of them, then they need to be changed.

 

[Evo]

I give that guy some credit for standing up to all those shocks.

In the new ones I believe as long as the target does not remove the electrodes an officer can hit him multiple times.

Was it a taser or a stun gun?

Sure doesn't sound like a taser, does it?

 

[0rthodontist]

Was it a taser or a stun gun?

http://www.nbc4.tv/news/10325914/detail.html?rss=la&psp=news states that it was a taser used in a close-range capacity.

"The officers deemed it necessary to use the Taser in a 'drive stun' capacity," she said in the statement. "A Taser is used to incapacitate subjects who are resistant by discharging an electronic current into the subject in one of two methods: via two wired probes that are deployed from the Taser, or in a 'drive stun' capacity by touching the subject with the Taser. In this incident the student was not shot with a Taser; rather, officers used the 'drive stun' capability.

 

[Hurkyl]

The students standing up front would have the clearest view of the scene and they seemed to think the force used was unnecessary ... I see no reason not to believe them.

But are they qualified to judge? Maybe I'm being overly cynical, but I think there are a lot of people out there who would think any force is unnecessary. And, of course, those opinions are much more interesting to report.

 

[SpaceTiger]

But are they qualified to judge? Maybe I'm being overly cynical, but I think there are a lot of people out there who would think any force is unnecessary. And, of course, those opinions are much more interesting to report.

Well, they are the ones supposedly being protected and the ones for whom the rules are made, so I would argue they're more qualified than most other objective observers, insomuch as "excessive" is a relative term. There are two things to debate there, whether the students agree with the goals of the officers (getting the student out of the library) and whether they think their means of achieving those goals were necessary. Presumably the latter is the issue up for debate and I would certainly say that the students were in a much better position to judge that than someone who was just watching that video.

 

[Hurkyl]

I would certainly say that the students were in a much better position to judge that than someone who was just watching that video.

(Assuming this is true) that still doesn't make them qualified -- it just means they are less unqualified than some other random person.

 

[twisting_edge]

Taunting should never change the procedures taken by the police. Unless the taunts are along the lines of "I have a weapon," police officers should disregard them, no matter how insulting, except possibly afterwards to book them for verbal assault.

Ever seen a riot start?

Isn't that one fo the things the police are supposed to stop before it happens?

 

[DaveC426913]

I'm still waiting to hear from those who feel that this was wrongful.

What do you think the cops should have - or could have - done differently?

 

[verty]

Hand-cuff him and lead him away. I realize their aim is to break his will first so they don't have to fight, but I don't think that is always appropriate.

 

[0rthodontist]

Ever seen a riot start?

Isn't that one fo the things the police are supposed to stop before it happens?

Yes--if the kid's yelling looked like it was going to start a riot then they might have needed to act differently. As it is, the crowds appeared in force only when they started using the taser causing him to scream. I can't imagine that there would have been any riot, or even much of a crowd, if they had just cuffed him and carried him out, no matter how much he was yelling (but not actually screaming in pain).

 

[Astronuc]

What do you think the cops should have - or could have - done differently?

I was wondering about this. What could they have done differently to resolve the matter without the use of the stun device.

Perhaps not yelling (understandable in the heat of the moment though).

I couldn't tell, so I am left to wonder if they had tried to determine if the young man couldn't walk or was just resisting.

I was severely electrocuted once. The initial sensation was as though I had been hit over every inch of my body - I fell against a wall behind me. For a moment I was dazed trying to regain my senses. I then got up very slowly, but feeling somewhat dizzy - pulse racing and arms and legs trembling. I slowly left the mechanical room where I was working and had someone drive me to the shop (office) where I could report the event. It took me about an hour to rest to the point where I could drive home. If the building had been on fire and falling down around me, I doubt I could have run.

Possibly the student become disorinted, especially if he received a charge over several seconds.

 

[twisting_edge]

I can't imagine that there would have been any riot, or even much of a crowd, if they had just cuffed him and carried him out, no matter how much he was yelling (but not actually screaming in pain).

As I wrote earlier, the decision isn't, "Do we zap him four times or handcuff him?" The decision at each point is, "Do we zap him once and convince him to leave under his own power or drag him out?" It's the same decision each of the times you zap him, until it becomes clear that zapping isn't going to work.

A normal person would have decided after the first zap that it wasn't worth it. The police repeatedly told him how to avoid getting zapped again. I can only guess what the guy's motivation was in sticking it out so he could get zapped again (I suspect he thought he was proving something, and felt righteous about it), but the police were making the entirely reasonable assumption he would eventually decide to leave.

The guy's motivation is irrelevant. The police motivation was both reasonable and relevant.

 

[0rthodontist]

Zap him once, or cuff him and carry him out (if necessary)? I would say that given that choice they should cuff him and carry him out. Zapping a person physically assaults them; it's an act of violence. Cuffing a person and dragging him out of the library may be humiliating but it's not actually physically violent. I would say that cuffing someone and carrying them out is a less extreme action than tasering them once.

 

[chroot]

Honestly, I'd prefer being zapped -- even more than once -- and leaving on my own two feet over being physically bound and dragged out of a building. Perhaps it's just a matter of opinion, though. The zap only hurts for a couple of seconds.

- Warren

 

[0rthodontist]

Coercion through the infliction of pain should always be the last resort.

 

[Gelsamel Epsilon]

I think there may be problems with evaluating which is more ethically correct, coercion through pain or coercion though (possible) wounding.

 

[abdo375]

http://messageboard.tuckermax.com/showthread.php?t=12336

an eyewitness
wounder if it's true ?

 

[0rthodontist]

Carrying him would not be "coercion through wounding" even in the (probably unlikely) situation that he becomes injured while they carry him. If they are carrying him, they are not coercing him to do anything. It might be that they could injure him by accident, but that still would not be coercion of any kind, while the taser thing is definitely coercion through pain.

 

[chroot]

So, Orthodontist, I assume you would prefer being immediately handcuffed and bodily dragged out of the building -- down several flights of stairs, no less -- rather than being zapped by an essentially harmless stun gun a couple of times, and then walking out on your own?

- Warren

 

[Gelsamel Epsilon]

Semantics... I just woke up. You know what I mean. Coercion through pain, or removal and possible wounding?

 

[dontdisturbmycircles]

I think it is adbo. Seriously cmon, put yourself in his shoes. Obviously the cops did not arrive right away, and I am pretty sure that security would only call the police if the guy is being a jackass and refusing to leave. It is definitely understandable that they wanted him out. I mean, people have been raped and seriously injured at University Campus's because people without ID were not noticed/ordered off of the property. The dumby didn't have his ID card and failed to see why he should have it on him. I can understand that he forgot to have it on him, that's fine, I don't remember my wallet everytime I go out, but its just plain ridiculousness to make a big deal about it and refuse to leave.

Unfortunately I don't see the police sitting down with him and begging him to leave as a viable option. And I think that he was willing to struggle if the police tried to take him out. Perhaps they could have got cuffs on his legs as well as hands, but I wasn't there so I don't know if that was a viable possibility or not.

I don't completely disagree with the notion that there were other options available to the officers, but I do disagree with the notion that he was "tortured" or even treated excessively badly. I have seen people get stunned on TV before (At full power, due to having a gun etc) and they didn't scream as loud as this fool. Since the only thing we are able to judge his pain by is the intensity of his yelling, I bet that it is not as bad as it seems. Anyone here ever get stunned?

 

[0rthodontist]

So, Orthodontist, I assume you would prefer being immediately handcuffed and bodily dragged out of the building -- down several flights of stairs, no less -- rather than being zapped by an essentially harmless stun gun a couple of times, and then walking out on your own?

Well, what I would prefer--and what I would do--is walk out voluntarily before the police even got there, as soon as I was asked to leave because I didn't have my card. If I were a little bit dumber then I might wait until the police arrived, then realize the situation was getting a bit serious and walk out with them with no additional convincing needed. If I were even dumber than that then yes, I would prefer to be handcuffed and carried out than zapped with a taser.

The main reason I'd prefer being carried out is that if I were so stupid that I was dead-set against leaving, I sure wouldn't want my mind to be changed just because one of the officers inflicted pain on me. That would be an admission of weakness more embarrassing than just being bodily expelled from the library--it would say that my hypothetical "principles" (stupid ones in this case) are so weak that a little pain can change my mind. So not only would being zapped be more painful, it would also be more humiliating. I would rather be carried out.