UCLA campus police torture student, in the library

[dontdisturbmycircles]

I admit they had quite a few officers there, but have you ever tried to carry someone who didn't want to be carried? Even a little kid, it's hard! And no, I am not a kidnapper, . I am referring to a kid throwing a temper tantrum (not at all unlike this scenario)

 

[Gelsamel Epsilon]

According to this report if the subject is able to move away from the drive stun then the drive stun is considered ineffective.

http://www.taser.com/documents/Columbus_TASER_Study_June_2005a.pdf

But it also says that in Drive Stun mode it's working off "pain compliance" rather then it's stunning ability. Which suggest to me a fair amount of pain.

 

[chroot]

So, Orthodonist.. now you've admitted that the zap is, in your estimation, only "a little pain." You've also admitted that your objection to the zap is really more of principal and pride than actual physical pain or injury. Very interesting, indeed...

It leaves me to wonder whether you are really against the use of the stun gun because it may injure, or because it may injure the pride.

- Warren

 

[Gelsamel Epsilon]

Also, http://alt.coxnewsweb.com/palmbeachpost/swf/tasers.swf says that skin can be burned when the weapon is placed directly on the skin, how many volts/amps cause that?

 

[chroot]

The skin might be burned in two tiny little spots where the electrode touches the skin. You'd suffer far worse injury by eating pizza that's a little too hot.

- Warren

 

[twisting_edge]

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.

It also usually creates an arrest record when they do that, something most students would probably rather not have.

 

[Gelsamel Epsilon]

It also says that Amnesty international has problems with Drive Stun mode because it's often used on restrained people.

 

[dontdisturbmycircles]

If he was restrained and stunned, that is cruel, I doubt that was the case here as the officers were in front of a crowd of outwardly spoken university students.

 

[Gelsamel Epsilon]

He was definitely restrained at least after the 2nd shock. Whether there were shocks after that is debatable because he could be acting the scream and flailing.

 

[twisting_edge]

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.

That's more or less exactly what I felt his motivations probably were. I was a little less charitable about it the two or three times I described them.

 

[Gelsamel Epsilon]

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/local_news/epaper/2005/05/30/m1a_taser_0530.html

Even the company that makes the stun gun, Taser International, urges caution about use of the weapon in the "drive-stun" mode and with repeated shocks...

Edit:

Officers also can remove the prong cartridge and discharge the weapon directly against a person's body in the "drive-stun" mode to subdue combative arrestees with a searing jolt of pain.

The Taser training manual advises that because it is not incapacitating, this mode can lead to "prolonged struggles" and that "it is in these types of scenarios that officers are often facing accusations of excessive force."

The technique also requires some care, according to Taser International, but the company's guidelines contain conflicting recommendations. The manual points out that the neck and groin "have proven highly sensitive to injury, such as crushing to the trachea or testicles if applied forcefully." The manual continues, "However, these areas have proven highly effective targets."

A recent amendment to the DeLand Police Department's Taser policy is clearer, saying that the "drive-stun" mode can be used only under exceptional circumstances. Local policies don't address the use of the "drive-stun" mode in writing, although narratives in some of the reports examined by The Post acknowledge that this use is discouraged.

 

[twisting_edge]

He was definitely restrained at least after the 2nd shock. Whether there were shocks after that is debatable because he could be acting the scream and flailing.

He's not acting, he's just overreacting. His is probably completely freaked out. He obviously never thought things would get that far, else he would have left a lot earlier.

As a consequence, he is panicked and disoriented, and has no idea what to expect next. It's no surprise he would overreact under such circumstances.

 

[0rthodontist]

So, Orthod``teresting, indeed...

It leaves me to wonder whether you are really against the use of the stun gun because it may injure, or because it may injure the pride.

I am against the use of the stun gun because it is coercion by pain, which is wrong not because it causes injury, but because it is degrading to the human spirit and it is the principle behind torture. Why do we consider torture unethical in most circumstances, even when it doesn't cause permanent injury? Whatever the reasons that torture is unethical, these are the same reasons that other instances of coercion by pain are unethical.

Coercion by pain can sometimes be an ethical choice, but only if it averts a greater disaster.

Here is another way to look at the situation in the library: the police officers are going to remove that kid from the library against his will no matter what happens. They can coerce him through pain from the taser, or they can carry him out. Either way it is not his choice. If he walks out on his own because of the pain the police inflict, he is no more under his own control than if he is carried out in handcuffs.

TE, are you sure that handcuffing someone automatically counts as an arrest?

 

[chroot]

I really don't see how any rational person can equate the police's actions here with torture.

- Warren

 

[dontdisturbmycircles]

The only way I could see it as being classified as torture is if he was unable to get up. I would agree that it is plausible that he would have had a hard time getting up after being stunned, but as was said by someone else, if he's spouting political statements at the top of his lungs, I have a hunch he could have walked .

 

[Gelsamel Epsilon]

http://www.november.org/stayinfo/breaking06/JustifyTasers.html

A probe fired from a taser delivers 50,000 volts, usually overwhelming a person's nervous system and sending muscles into uncontrollable contractions.

But if it's used in drive stun mode, although it emits the same amount of electrical energy, it can't cause a neuromuscular response.

 

[dontdisturbmycircles]

So if it can't cause a neuromuscular response in this case, why do you keep posting info about how it can cause uncontrollable contractions, it simply doesn't apply here.

I think they just use the probes when they feel threatened, and the "drive stun" to encourage compliance.

 

[Gelsamel Epsilon]

Where did I say it could cause uncontrollable contractions?

I'm just posting some interesting facts about the difference between driver-stun mode and the normal tazer mode. Make of it what you will.

 

[dontdisturbmycircles]

You were talking about the fact that a taser fires probes capable of firing 50,000 volts and "sending muscles into uncontrollable contractions." I guess I misunderstood the intent of your post. Its just I feel that there should be a definite distinction between a taser and a close-contact stun device. (At a lower voltage)

 

[0rthodontist]

I really don't see how any rational person can equate the police's actions here with torture.

Not equal--just based on the same principle. The principle behind torture is that if you inflict enough pain on someone, they will eventually do what you want. I think you don't dispute that this was the same principle that the police officers were trying to put into practice here.

 

[Gelsamel Epsilon]

Tasers shoot off wires that shoot 50,000 Volts of electricity through the body, this causes uncontrollable contractions. How ever there is an option on Tasers where you remove the wire shooting cartridge and instead just press the taser up against them and fire. This still has the same voltage and ampage it just doesn't paralyse (probably due to the two pins being very close together or something, I'm not sure).That's basically what my post said. Tasers normally paralyse, but in drive stun mode it's just there for the pain.

 

[dontdisturbmycircles]

Okay, I agree, sorry, I misinterpreted. I think in this case they were using a stun baton or something. But from what I understand the pain would have been a lot milder then a tazer. I think that in the media, the distinction between tazer/stungun is sometimes confused.

You have to admit though, the police didn't really have many other options available to them. It was either carry him out or try to coerce him into carrying himself out. I don't know, but I'd like to know whether or not he was acting aggressively, kicking etc. It is my understanding that if a non-cooperative individual is becomming aggressive with law enforcement, appropriate force can be used. But anyways, I am going to bed, goodnight.

 

[0rthodontist]

They used a taser in "drive stun" mode. I earlier posted a link to an article quoting a police press release that explained it.

 

[Gelsamel Epsilon]

Yep, so that's 50,000 volts of fun for him.

 

[SpaceTiger]

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

My point is that, of everyone that has made a judgement so far (myself included), they appear to be the most qualified (or least unqualified, however you wish to phrase it). As such, that's where I would lean. But as I already said, I don't think there's enough evidence to say for sure either way.

 

[DaveC426913]

Here is another way to look at the situation in the library: the police officers are going to remove that kid from the library against his will no matter what happens. They can coerce him through pain from the taser, or they can carry him out. Either way it is not his choice. If he walks out on his own because of the pain the police inflict, he is no more under his own control than if he is carried out in handcuffs.

Police brutality victim shocked repeatedly, thrown down stairs
If he had enough spirit left to fight while being carried down that flight of stairs, and he fell, that would make a lovely scene for the front page of the papers.

As I said before, I believe the officers have a mandate to ensure the safety of, not only themselves and innocent citizens, but guilty ones as well.

 

[physics girl phd]

I believe the officers have a mandate to ensure the safety of, not only themselves and innocent citizens, but guilty ones as well.

Now THAT is well said.

 

[0rthodontist]

Police brutality victim shocked repeatedly, thrown down stairs
If he had enough spirit left to fight while being carried down that flight of stairs, and he fell, that would make a lovely scene for the front page of the papers.

First, there was never any indication that the kid had any intention of physically resisting. All evidence points to that he was just going limp and refusing to move. Additionally, there do not appear to be very many stairs--it's more like half a flight.

As I said before, I believe the officers have a mandate to ensure the safety of, not only themselves and innocent citizens, but guilty ones as well.

Absolutely, they do have that obligation. But first, there's no reason to believe that several officers carrying or dragging a limp student down half a flight of stairs (which they appear to do anyway) has much potential for injury. Second, there is no reason to believe that use of the taser will in any way encourage the student to walk on his own. Gelsamel has posted links to a few articles indicating that pain caused by "drive stun" tends to anger the subject rather than make them more cooperative. Third, the use of a taser solely to inflict pain rather than to immobilize a subject is immoral in most circumstances. Coercion by pain is something fundamentally wrong. It is not just wrong because it causes pain to the subject--that is a very small part of what's wrong with it. It's wrong because the pain is being used to coerce. Everything in me says you just don't do that unless there's no other choice.

Also, it's tough to make out but it doesn't seem that the officers ever warn the kid the first time they shock him. It sounds more like they are just saying "stand up" and then suddenly a scream.

 

[0rthodontist]

It's like this: if I accidentally hit my finger with a hammer, it will hurt a whole lot, my finger will turn blue and the fingernail will fall off. But it's not so bad, just one of those things that happens sometimes. And unless I actually broke the bone, there's no lasting damage. But if someone else hits my finger with a hammer and says "if you don't do what I want, I'll hurt you again," that is a hundred times worse. It physically hurts the same, but the fact that it was deliberate and used as coercion makes it an awful thing.

 

[dontdisturbmycircles]

There has to be lawful reason for using actions such as those described, although hammers are not often used. :P What about putting you in a cell for 23 hours a day for 10 years? Sounds pretty harsh right? Almost like torture :P, but if you do something dumb enough, that is what will happen to you, and I think that is fair. If the police were simply tazering him to get him to run laps around the library for amusement, that would be one thing, but if he is breaking the law at the time, its a bit different right? I see where your coming from, but you have admit that this guy was breaking the law (However minor the offense was.) being on private property without proof that he belongs there.

Also I think that resisting arrest is a criminal offense as well.

 

[0rthodontist]

There are cases where coercion by pain is justified, the penal system being one of them, because it is necessary for society to function. But you don't put someone into prison before they are convicted of a crime. It is a huge deal to put someone in prison, not done casually. The judicial system is a huge, impersonal machinery with the goal of taking punishment out of the hands of individual people and putting it in the hands of the law. It is a very serious and lengthy deliberation, that is subject to a huge amount of official regulation called the law.

If a police officer deliberately causes pain to a suspected criminal (and not being convicted of anything, that's all this student was--suspected) based on his own personal judgment, made on the spur of the moment, with the intent of coercion, that is a vastly different thing. It is not the police's right to "convict" someone of "not standing up" and administer their own punishment at the spur of the moment as they see fit.

 

[0rthodontist]

Also, before anyone else brings it up--normal police actions in the apprehension of a suspected criminal are NOT coercion. Shooting a man because he is holding a gun is not coercion by pain, it is just physically stopping him from causing harm. Tasering (using the ranged capability of the taser) someone who is trying to escape is not coercion by pain, it is just physically stopping him from escaping. Almost no police actions constitute coercion by pain, as indeed they shouldn't.

 

[dontdisturbmycircles]

But the goal of the stunning (for lack of a better term) was not to get the individual to stand up, but rather to get him to stop breaking the law. The University Security Guards have the right to deny someone permission into their library without a "trial" or any of those processes based on their discretion. You don't have to convince a judge to order a violent drunk out of your party. Same sort of scenario right?

So at that point, he WAS ordered by the law to leave the library and he was trespassing if he didn't. Of course if he can prove that he was breaking no law and that he didn't have to leave the building, then there should not have been any police involvement, but I think it's pretty obvious in this case that he WAS ordered out of the building and thus by refusing to leave, was definitely breaking a law.

 

[dontdisturbmycircles]

Again I don't refute that there were other options avaliable to the officers, just that the one chosen wasn't hideous or uncalled for.

 

[dontdisturbmycircles]

Let me clarify my oppinion. I think that the use of a stunning device is warranted if the person is behaving aggressively. I do not think that it should be used as a first resort, in fact I think it should be used as a last resort. The videos are very poor and it is hard to tell wether or not he was stuggling/acting aggressively to the point where carrying him out of there may have harmed himself or officers. I don't even know the approx strength of the the guy. I think personally, and this is definitely debatable but in my oppinion never provable given the info we both have, that the officers probably did feel that apprehension by carrying him out was probably not going to work and could result in injury which they may or may not be liable for. They know that a stun given in the appropriate place ONLY causes pain and not injury, so it was the safer option for both the person being arrested AND the officers.

EDIT: So for example if he looked to have a body mass comparable to that of steve urkel, I would question the use of a taser. On the other hand if he was a bit bigger, it would be more understandable. Also his demeaner, I think they can probably tell which people are going to kick and scream and which are going to go limp and just let you carry them out without much of a fuss. This guy was screaming DON'T TOUCH ME, so it sounds like he may have been the kicking/screaming type.