Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   UCLA student tased multiple times... pointless police violence?
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 31 of 142 (364664)
11-19-2006 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Hyroglyphx
11-18-2006 11:28 PM


Re: Reviewing the video
nemesis writes:
So, he was leaving, but then they grabbed him to stop him from leaving, then they decided to tase him and repeat 79 times to get up? That doesn't seem to make much sense.
Don't argue with me. Argue with the witnesses.
If he was playing his little games, then wouldn't that suggest that he had no intention of leaving? Wouldn't that indicate that he just wanted to put on a big show? You saw yourself how many different ways he was asked to leave. He didn't want to. He wanted to play a game.
Repeating what I said serves what purpose?
Well, now that you are going into law enforcement, as a prerequisite, you are going to have to get tased and pepper foam several times in your career. The reason why is so that LE officers will understand and be able to empathize with a suspect instead of just going rogue and indiscriminately tasing people. Nobody likes being electrocuted. And often, just the threat of it alone is able to gain the compliance of the offender. The reason they use it, is because they won't like it. Of course they don't like it. That's the whole point. Pain, unfortunately, is a greater motivator for some hard-headed offenders.
The student may have been hard-headed, but I beg to differ whether it warranted the use of taser at least 4 times.
It only incapacitates someone while you are employing it. Unless you have a medical condition, there is no reason why you won't be able to regain your motor functions.
That's not what I was pointing out. I was pointing out the fact that they were ordering him to get up while they were tasing him. Even if he was playing the passive agressive game, I still don't agree that tasing him at least 4 times was a necessary thing.
I can almost guarantee that, per the law, the officers were justified. I personally would not have employed the taser until much later. But then again, we don't know what transpired beforehand. You can hear him saying, "Get your hands off of me!" and then heard rustling. He might have made an erratic movement or went to strike the officers. I don't know. They also might have been in there 10 minutes trying to get him to leave of his own volition. I don't know for sure. All I know is what I saw and heard.
And if you cared to read my posts more carefully, you'd know that I haven't commented on the initial shock. What I've been trying to figure out is the necessity for a second, third, fourth, and may be fifth time while he was handcuffed on the floor.
I honestly don't know how the officers could have felt threatened by a handcuffed, incapacitated person on the floor.

Place yourself on the map at http://www.frappr.com/evc
The thread about this map can be found here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-18-2006 11:28 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-19-2006 1:48 AM Taz has replied

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5520 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 32 of 142 (364666)
11-19-2006 1:15 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Hyroglyphx
11-19-2006 12:51 AM


Re: Gaining Compliance
A quote from the comprehensive training manual you provided
A subject physically refuses to comply or respond. He/she does not make any attempt to physically
defeat the actions of the officer but forces the officer to employ physical maneuvers to establish
control.
For example: A subject may be involved in a demonstration. The subject ignores an officer’s
requests to move and the officer must use physical strength to move the subject.
It says to use physical strength to move the subject. It does not say to tase the subject.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-19-2006 12:51 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-19-2006 2:10 AM fallacycop has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 142 (364669)
11-19-2006 1:48 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Taz
11-19-2006 12:57 AM


Re: Reviewing the video
quote:
If he was playing his little games, then wouldn't that suggest that he had no intention of leaving? Wouldn't that indicate that he just wanted to put on a big show? You saw yourself how many different ways he was asked to leave. He didn't want to. He wanted to play a game.
Repeating what I said serves what purpose?
The purpose was to point out that you had it right. He was just being a jackass. Just because he said he was leaving doesn't mean it was actually trying to leave. I don't no how many times I've seen an officer tell an individual to either get down, place their hands behind their back, or stop resisting, all the while the person is saying, "I'm not resisting." Saying it doesn't prove the action. The action is what matters.
The student may have been hard-headed, but I beg to differ whether it warranted the use of taser at least 4 times.
Well, we could look at in two ways. If the kid really didn't want to be tasered, he wouldn't have. If he really wanted to leave, he would have. If he didn't want to get tasered, at any given time he could have taken their threats seriously, especially after at least being tased once. He just wanted to play his little game. So, you can either look at it as the cops were being completely unreasonable, or you can look at it that he chose, willfully, not to comply. That's how I see it. As an LE officer, you have to take control or they will walk all over you. Could they have tried to diffuse the matter verbally better? I don't know. I would certainly hope that they tried very hard at diplomacy. But I can't make that determination with the evidence provided to me.
I was pointing out the fact that they were ordering him to get up while they were tasing him. Even if he was playing the passive agressive game, I still don't agree that tasing him at least 4 times was a necessary thing.
They were ordering him to get up the second he was on the floor. So, whether they were saying that he needed to get up while tasering him seems like a reactionary statement. And when your adrenaline is pumping, you'll understand what I'm talking about. Its a very confusing place to be. I'm sure the added stress of a mob coming at them only exacerbated things, not helped to alleviate it.
And if you cared to read my posts more carefully, you'd know that I haven't commented on the initial shock. What I've been trying to figure out is the necessity for a second, third, fourth, and may be fifth time while he was handcuffed on the floor.
Because he refused to get up. I wouldn't have done it. I would have just picked him up and carried him to the car to begin with.
I honestly don't know how the officers could have felt threatened by a handcuffed, incapacitated person on the floor.
Well, handcuffing a person is a defensive maneuver. I've fought handcuffed people before. Its not always an easy thing. But, regardless, the issue is about this particular case. This man didn't seem to pose an immediate physical threat as far as I could tell from the video. It was just a spoiled little emo kid. I would have picked him up though. And, if I were there, I would have ordered him to not tase him after the initial one because it seems they had him cuffed after the first one.

Faith is not a pathetic sentiment, but robust, vigorous confidence built on the fact that God is holy love. You cannot see Him just now, you cannot fully understand what He's doing, but you know that you know Him." -Oswald Chambers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Taz, posted 11-19-2006 12:57 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Taz, posted 11-19-2006 2:46 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 64 by Jaderis, posted 11-20-2006 6:09 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 142 (364671)
11-19-2006 2:10 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by fallacycop
11-19-2006 1:15 AM


Re: Gaining Compliance
quote:
A subject physically refuses to comply or respond. He/she does not make any attempt to physically defeat the actions of the officer but forces the officer to employ physical maneuvers to establish
control.
For example: A subject may be involved in a demonstration. The subject ignores an officer’s requests to move and the officer must use physical strength to move the subject.
It says to use physical strength to move the subject. It does not say to tase the subject.
This manual was written in 2002 prior to the acceptance of taser devices, however, tasers were invented as pain compliance, which if you look at the appropriate threat level response, falls under this tier.
Response Level 3-- Physical Control
There are five classifications of physical control.
  • Restraint Devices:
    Mechanical tools used to restrict a subject’s movement and facilitate searching, such as handcuffs, flex cuffs, leg irons, belly chains, nylon restraints.
  • Transporters:
    Techniques used to control and/or move a subject from point A to point B with minimum effort by the officer in order to gain and retain control over the subject.
  • Takedowns:
    Techniques that redirect a subject to the ground in a controlled manner in order to limit his/her physical resistance and to facilitate the application of a restraint device.
  • Pain Compliance:
    Techniques that force a subject to comply with an officer as a result of the officer inflicting controlled pain upon specific points in the subject’s body, such as pressure point techniques.
For example: Subject refuses to move, so the officer has the option of applying gradual controlled pain upon specific points in the subject’s body, such as pressure point techniques.
For example: Subject refuses to move, so the officer has the option of applying gradual fingertip pressure to a nerve in order to gain compliance.
Pepper foam and tasers are designed to gain compliance by momentarily incapacitating a person long enough to gain physical control over them. The use of impact weapons is the next level of force for extremely violent, but unarmed offenders. The next level is deadly force which is only necessitated under immediate danger to life and limb for civilian law enforcement. Military law enforcement extends that a bit further to serious cases of sabotage or highly sensitive areas that affect national security.

Faith is not a pathetic sentiment, but robust, vigorous confidence built on the fact that God is holy love. You cannot see Him just now, you cannot fully understand what He's doing, but you know that you know Him." -Oswald Chambers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by fallacycop, posted 11-19-2006 1:15 AM fallacycop has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Silent H, posted 11-19-2006 5:26 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 35 of 142 (364674)
11-19-2006 2:43 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Hyroglyphx
11-18-2006 11:28 PM


Re: Reviewing the video
So, he was leaving, but then they grabbed him to stop him from leaving, then they decided to tase him and repeat 79 times to get up? That doesn't seem to make much sense.
So what if it doesn't make any sense? That's the point; it was a nonsensical, unwarranted escalation of force.
Police abuse, in other words. They were taser trigger-happy because they found a Pakistani with no library card.
Unless you have a medical condition, there is no reason why you won't be able to regain your motor functions.
He did have a medical condition, according to his statements.
I also personally would have tried strongarming him to his feet. If all of that failed, I would have threatened him to use my taser or pepper foam. Again, all of that based on the information that I know of.
So, by your own admission, you would have done something completely different and non-escalatory; but you don't think what the officers did was wrong? Now you're not making any sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-18-2006 11:28 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-19-2006 11:01 AM crashfrog has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 36 of 142 (364675)
11-19-2006 2:46 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Hyroglyphx
11-19-2006 1:48 AM


Re: Reviewing the video
nemesis writes:
Well, handcuffing a person is a defensive maneuver. I've fought handcuffed people before. Its not always an easy thing. But, regardless, the issue is about this particular case. This man didn't seem to pose an immediate physical threat as far as I could tell from the video. It was just a spoiled little emo kid. I would have picked him up though. And, if I were there, I would have ordered him to not tase him after the initial one because it seems they had him cuffed after the first one.
A simple yes or no. Do you or do you not agree that shocking him that many times all the while he was handcuffed on the floor was excessive force?

Place yourself on the map at http://www.frappr.com/evc
The thread about this map can be found here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-19-2006 1:48 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-19-2006 11:03 AM Taz has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 37 of 142 (364680)
11-19-2006 5:26 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Hyroglyphx
11-19-2006 2:10 AM


Re: Gaining Compliance
There are reasons for laws and rules. Those reasons generally preclude using any and all force in carrying them out. That there is a law or rule is NOT a sufficient excuse for its enforcement, and the alternative to not using any and all methods (or enforcing all laws at all times), is not rampant chaos. A law enforcement officer must use reason to understand how best to serve their civic responsibility of maintaining peace and order, and not just "follow orders" and appeal to rights of escalation if the road gets bumpy.
In this case it was a rule regarding people without IDs using the library. Do you think the idea behind the rule is that such people must be kept out at all costs, or simply a rule to prevent people from causing a disturbance or otherwise abusing the facility? My guess would be that whatever the reason, the police in this case caused more problems than what the rule was created to avoid in the first place.
As some have pointed out... it is just a library, and the guy (by all accounts) was not making a scene until the attempted removal, and (by some accounts) was willing to leave. The police used methods which turned a simple annoyance (to campus police) into something much greater and upsetting (to everyone involved).
I do not understand how you can watch that video (the one you supplied) and come away with an impression what they were doing was worthwhile or nonabusive. Do you honestly feel they improved safety and respect of law enforcement with what they did?
Personally, I have been a witness to two such events.
In one case (coincidentally a library) a homeless man was being ejected because he clearly was not supposed to be there. Unlike the UCLA person (who may very well have had a right to be there and LE didn't bother to find out) the homeless guy became threatening and violent. He screamed how he would "Tae Kwon Do your asses". As in the video people became concerned and watched, but the officers managed to remove the individual without using any weapons (much less tasing). No one confronted the officers because there was simply no question to those in the immediate vicinity what was going on... and that they were acting both respectfully and with due authority. Although there was a commotion, they removed a problem. Those that asked questions later were not hassled by the police for asking.
In another case (though not a library) police barred an individual who was more than ready to leave at the front doors of a building. The person stated they were willing to leave and without question was going to do just that. But the officers grabbed the individual and began to rough him up (thankfully not tasing, but still violent). THEY escalated the situation. When questioned what they were doing by witnesses, they threatened similar treatment to those witnesses. Eventually these officers were challenged more officially later in a review. At all steps fellow officers did exactly what you are doing now, arguing an assumed innocence of the officers despite questions raised by witnesses, and appealing to the right of escalation as necessary to the cause of protecting humanity. This is despite the fact that in the course of subsequent investigation the "victim" was found not to have been a threat nor intending to threaten anyone, and was pretty much just leaving the building and would have left if not prevented by the officers.
Here's what it seems to me, when police have those they are sworn to protect questioning what they are doing in order to protect them, then they are likely not doing the right thing. With few exception, the "people" can generally figure out what is NOT in their immediate interests. When police turn on anyone questioning their authority, there is NO exception that they are in the wrong.
You have not addressed at all the fact that at the end of your tape you see and hear an officer threatening another student with getting tased if he did not stop questioning them. That is only one case which could be heard clearly, and more appear to have claimed the same treatment. Why on earth would that be necessary?
In this case you can even wind back and watch that other student to see what he was doing, which was nothing that required such a threat.
This is not an issue of emasculating law enforcement. This IS an issue of how law enforcement must approach their duties so that they respect the people they are working for, including those they may have to confront. Without that necessary respect it is an emasculation of the populace.
Unfortunately you appear to be supporting fellow officers at the expense of reason and civic responsibility.
AbE: I realized that I had not addressed earlier comments you made regarding passive resistance. You seem to feel that it is somewhat a provocation as well as undermining for law enforcement. While it means officers have to do some heavy lifting, or stand around to make sure nothing more happens, I'm not sure what is wrong with that.
The point of demonstration (individual or group) is to gain attention to a point. Passive resistance allows one to do this while at the same time showing what an opposing party is willing to do to someone who is NOT violent, in order to achieve their ends. It is purposefully a way to shame the other into considering the importance of the rule they are enforcing.
What do you make of Gandhi? Were british officers correct for beating on him and others in order to achieve compliance? Put another way, is compliance with law more important than peace and order?
Edited by holmes, : header for kicker
Edited by holmes, : ghandified

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-19-2006 2:10 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-19-2006 12:24 PM Silent H has replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 38 of 142 (364687)
11-19-2006 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Hyroglyphx
11-18-2006 9:56 PM


Re: Reviewing the video
Ever seen someone thrown out of a club by the bouncers?
I have, on a number of occasions.
Now, if one or two bouncers can throw drunk and violent individuals out of a club without using restraints and without striking or beating these individuals with either their hands or any implement - why, on earth, can't these police officers handle this situation without using Tasers?
In my country we are fortunate enough not to have our police routinely armed with either firearms or tasers; yet, I have no doubt, they'd have been perfectly capable of removing a non-compliant student from a building.
This situation could clearly have been resolved without use of a Taser. That is was used at all speaks very poorly of the officers involved. That it was used repeatedly shifts this from being a case of poorly trained officers dealing with a situation badly to being a case of needless brutality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-18-2006 9:56 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Chiroptera, posted 11-19-2006 3:26 PM Dr Jack has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 39 of 142 (364713)
11-19-2006 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Hyroglyphx
11-19-2006 12:51 AM


Re: Gaining Compliance
well, according to the matrix on page 4, at the very beginning of the manual, the most basic material, the UCLA folk screwed the pooch.
Thanks for the link.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-19-2006 12:51 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 142 (364719)
11-19-2006 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by crashfrog
11-19-2006 2:43 AM


Re: Reviewing the video
quote:
So, he was leaving, but then they grabbed him to stop him from leaving, then they decided to tase him and repeat 79 times to get up? That doesn't seem to make much sense.
So what if it doesn't make any sense? That's the point; it was a nonsensical, unwarranted escalation of force.
You wouldn't know either way about what transpired except for what can be seen and heard on the tape. And what I saw and heard was a man asked to comply 79 times.
Police abuse, in other words. They were taser trigger-happy because they found a Pakistani with no library card.
He was Iranian-American, not a Pakistani-- which is a superfluous element, at best. There's no doubt that the strategic move on this one is to add the tacit assertion that the whole instance was racially motivated.
He did have a medical condition, according to his statements.
And where can I see find this information?
quote:
I also personally would have tried strongarming him to his feet. If all of that failed, I would have threatened him to use my taser or pepper foam. Again, all of that based on the information that I know of.
So, by your own admission, you would have done something completely different and non-escalatory; but you don't think what the officers did was wrong? Now you're not making any sense.
I am making perfect sense. The initial shock was off camera, however, you hear him shouting to get off of him. Common sense would indicate that they went to take him in to custody. At that point, you hear shuffling as if a bit of a struggle ensued, then you hear him being shocked. We don't know what happened. Assuming that the officers were warranted in the initial use of the taser, I would have used it as well as long as other methods were first exhausted to oust the angry man. Once properly secured, I personally would have just picked him up. But at the same time, I have no objections to how they handled it, because at the end of the day, all he had to do was stand up and walk out.

Faith is not a pathetic sentiment, but robust, vigorous confidence built on the fact that God is holy love. You cannot see Him just now, you cannot fully understand what He's doing, but you know that you know Him." -Oswald Chambers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by crashfrog, posted 11-19-2006 2:43 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Silent H, posted 11-19-2006 11:16 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 43 by ringo, posted 11-19-2006 12:23 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 50 by crashfrog, posted 11-19-2006 1:43 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 142 (364720)
11-19-2006 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Taz
11-19-2006 2:46 AM


Re: Reviewing the video
A simple yes or no. Do you or do you not agree that shocking him that many times all the while he was handcuffed on the floor was excessive force?
Based on the information that I currently have, no.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Taz, posted 11-19-2006 2:46 AM Taz has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 42 of 142 (364722)
11-19-2006 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Hyroglyphx
11-19-2006 11:01 AM


Re: Reviewing the video
because at the end of the day, all he had to do was stand up and walk out.
I think that is an extremely convenient assertion. Based on what evidence can you make that claim? When many witnesses suggest otherwise, I tend to question the judgement of officers.
Such recordings, plus witness descriptions countering officer commentary, do much to undermine your claim.
They could have done many other things, especially when they saw it was upsetting everyone around them. Threatening students who did ask questions clearly was not necessary except as a means to bully them. Given all of the above, I think the more accurate assessment of what they were doing does not allow such easy assertions for what the student could have done.

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-19-2006 11:01 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 43 of 142 (364735)
11-19-2006 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Hyroglyphx
11-19-2006 11:01 AM


Re: Reviewing the video
nemesis_juggernaut writes:
And what I saw and heard was a man asked to comply 79 times.
How many times do you think they needed to ask before they realized that asking wasn't working?
If you repeat the same post 79 times, does that make your point more effective?

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-19-2006 11:01 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 142 (364736)
11-19-2006 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Silent H
11-19-2006 5:26 AM


Re: Gaining Compliance
There are reasons for laws and rules. Those reasons generally preclude using any and all force in carrying them out. That there is a law or rule is NOT a sufficient excuse for its enforcement, and the alternative to not using any and all methods (or enforcing all laws at all times), is not rampant chaos.
Call me a traditionalist if you will, but my understanding of laws is that they are pointless without enforcement. Add the two words to supply meaning. Law ---- Enforcement. Now, nobody is suggesting that the man be arrested for being in the library while he was not supposed to be. However, he was asked numerous times to comply. That's where a simple infraction becomes obstruction, which is a much more serious offense.
A law enforcement officer must use reason to understand how best to serve their civic responsibility of maintaining peace and order, and not just "follow orders" and appeal to rights of escalation if the road gets bumpy.
I fully agree that officers must use what is commonly referred to as "officer discretion," which could be expounded to mean that "here's a difference between the ministration and administration of justice. Nobody (except mechanical jurisprudence theorists) wants a ministerial agency of justice, one that would ritually and religiously follow every rule and regulation down to the letter in a mechanistic, repetitive, assembly-line manner. Instead, we need responsible administers -- officials who show "good judgment" and exercise discretion by assessing the context of each and every situation. By definition, discretion is the making of choices among a number of possible courses of action."
I certainly agree that not every scenario is going to go perfectly and that all officers have to learn how to pick and choose their battles. I'm a firm believer in winning the trust of an individual and using diplomacy whenever possible to use the minimal amount of force to gain compliance. But there are instances where diplomacy fails. Once that dialogue begins to break down, officers have to go to the next level of force.
In this case it was a rule regarding people without IDs using the library. Do you think the idea behind the rule is that such people must be kept out at all costs, or simply a rule to prevent people from causing a disturbance or otherwise abusing the facility? My guess would be that whatever the reason, the police in this case caused more problems than what the rule was created to avoid in the first place.
Of course, but dare I say that everyone is minimalizing the action in order to make the whole instance seem disproportionate. The rule is a simple one. And that simple rule, alone, does not justify any immediate use of force. However, this simple rule was what precipitated a much more serious offense.
As some have pointed out... it is just a library, and the guy (by all accounts) was not making a scene until the attempted removal, and (by some accounts) was willing to leave.
Again, adding that it was at a library is absolutely immaterial information in order to illicit sympathy. Obstruction and resisting is the offense that we're dealing with. I'm confident that his charge didn't read, "No library card." Do you understand what I'm saying? There are certain people here who are placing law enforcement agents in an indefensible position, because, in their mind, if something is simple enough, that it shouldn't actually be enforced. That kind of mentality emasculates law enforcement.
I do not understand how you can watch that video (the one you supplied) and come away with an impression what they were doing was worthwhile or nonabusive. Do you honestly feel they improved safety and respect of law enforcement with what they did?
LE officers are placed in a position of authority. That alone, as evidenced by the man's own words, conjures up for some people an immediate negative response. That goes with the territory. So whether it improved the respect of the UCLA PD is really of no consequence.
What should they have done? Should they have just left? Should they have even arrested him? What, in your mind, was the right course of action?
In one case (coincidentally a library) a homeless man was being ejected because he clearly was not supposed to be there. Unlike the UCLA person (who may very well have had a right to be there and LE didn't bother to find out) the homeless guy became threatening and violent. He screamed how he would "Tae Kwon Do your asses".
Yeah, I've dealt with those kind of people. Let me give you a for instance that actually happened to me. This is a question about perception. A man was brought into the hospital by another officer for making suicidal ideations. Under state law, law enforcement and healthcare professionals are required to place a Title 13 'hold' on those kinds of individuals. That means they can't leave a hospital until a pyschological evaluation is conducted. The initial officer had to leave, so I had the unpleasant task of watching the man.
Now, this man was inebriated and wanting to commit suicide-- a dangerous combination in some cases, because if they don't have regard for their own lives, how much less would they have yours? He kept getting out of his bed and trying to leave. Each time I had to redirect him to his room. At first it was a minor annoyance, but after awhile, it became apparent that he was playing a game with me. He, like a child, was testing boundaries to see if I would follow through.
Now, at one point, I thought I had gained his trust and established a good rapport. But out of the clear blue, he decided that he no longer liked me. At this point he was becoming more combatitve and I had to take a defensive posture and use a more assertive tone. He would stand up, clench his fists, stare brazenly at me, and say he was going to whoop my ass. Each time I managed to diffuse it only momentarily. I had to finally establish a limit. I informed him that if he comes near me again in a threatening manner, I was going to have to secure him to his bed.
In true, child-like fashion, he just had to test me. He clenched his fists and walked up to me within striking distance. I employed some defensive tactics and took him down with a reasonable amount of force. Because he was resisting, he locked up, and his head hit the wall. Now, this wall was made out of drywall, and so, it cracked, making a visible indentation of his head. Because of the commotion, people came running in as I was handcuffing him. Now, the perception might have been that I used excessive force. But I know well that I didn't. And my whole department knew that. But perception is often all that matters. I didn't get in any trouble because I did nothing wrong. However, those of a more liberal persuasion decided they no longer liked me.
That story was one about misperception and how it happens to law enforcement. The second moral to the story is one of gaining compliance. Because i did not back down in my resolve, he knew that I might buisness. And you know what? That man was an angel for the rest of the night and we had a good conversation from then on out and I got to talk with him about his problems. I could see that it was very cathartic for him.
So, the point is, if you want to gain the respect of the public, just like a child, you have to offer boundaries. The second you lose control of a boundry in law enforcement, or if they think you are bluffing, you've lost and it will impact you greatly. The guy in the video is no different. He was playing a game. And at any given time, he could have complied, stood up, walked out, and be done with it. He WANTED to make it as difficult as possible, and create the biggest scene imaginable. And in the end, he got what he wanted. He got to put on a big show and he will probably have the department cave in, cede defeat, and he will remain a spoiled brat.
You have not addressed at all the fact that at the end of your tape you see and hear an officer threatening another student with getting tased if he did not stop questioning them. That is only one case which could be heard clearly, and more appear to have claimed the same treatment. Why on earth would that be necessary?
I did see that, and I don't agree with his choice of words. He should not have made such a threat. However, it was no doubt made out of fear. When you have people in your face waving their hands around, it can get kind of scary knowing that you are severely outnumbered and knowing that a mob might erupt at anytime under such volatile circumstances. LE officers have to put on their game face, even though they are, at times, terrified. And unless you are in that situation, its not something you can really appreciate until you are in such a situation. Nonetheless, he should have been reprimanded by his watch commander or patrol supervisor.
Unfortunately you appear to be supporting fellow officers at the expense of reason and civic responsibility.
Holmes, I don't just support cops without a reason to do so, by some sort of default. If you're wrong, you're wrong. And I've already expressed that I would have handled things differently. I have posted three instances of what real police brutality looks like. I'm not unreasonable. I don't believe that what transpired was excessive. At worst, that tactic simply was not working, in which, its time to try something else.
I realized that I had not addressed earlier comments you made regarding passive resistance. You seem to feel that it is somewhat a provocation as well as undermining for law enforcement.
It is a provocation Holmes, and it does hinder law enforcement. Its certainly a whole lot better than dealing with the type of protesters who don paramilitary gear and are ready for an all-out-war, but it is still an act of aggression.
The point of demonstration (individual or group) is to gain attention to a point. Passive resistance allows one to do this while at the same time showing what an opposing party is willing to do to someone who is NOT violent, in order to achieve their ends. It is purposefully a way to shame the other into considering the importance of the rule they are enforcing.
I have no problem with peaceful protest-- none whatsoever. I'll give you an example of what is not peaceful or constructive. In Pittsburgh, PA a mob of angry individuals decided to block the entrance of a military recruitment office in order to stop people from going in. That's not a protest, that's a crime. And so, in response, the police had to come in and remove all the subjects and arrest them for that crime. Had they carried picket signs in a park across the street, it would have remained as a peaceful protest. So whether they acted passive aggressively is pretty much immaterial to how they intentionally impeded the actions of other individuals and their place of buisness.
What do you make of Gandhi? Were british officers correct for beating on him and others in order to achieve compliance?
No. Why would you think I would agree with beating passive aggressive demonstrators? I agree with pain compliance after negotiations fail.
Put another way, is compliance with law more important than peace and order?
If there is order and people have permits and they are being peaceful and not impeding the freedom of someone else, then it isn't a crime at all.

Faith is not a pathetic sentiment, but robust, vigorous confidence built on the fact that God is holy love. You cannot see Him just now, you cannot fully understand what He's doing, but you know that you know Him." -Oswald Chambers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Silent H, posted 11-19-2006 5:26 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Jazzns, posted 11-19-2006 12:50 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 48 by Chiroptera, posted 11-19-2006 1:16 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 56 by Silent H, posted 11-19-2006 3:39 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 45 of 142 (364739)
11-19-2006 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Hyroglyphx
11-19-2006 12:24 PM


Re: Gaining Compliance
Surprisingly, I am going to have to tentatively go with NJ on this one.
The instances that would change my mind are the specifics about if they restrained him after he finally agreed to leave and the circumstances of the additional tasering once he was on the floor. But with the absence of that information, it is the student that was in the wrong.
The officer threatening the other students with the taser was wrong but I don't know if I would have done any different in a situation where a bunch of other people were crowding around with the potential to cause more violence. I may have threatened use of the taser without any intent to use it just to halt any thought of escalation by the onlookers. It was probably a pretty fearful situation for the officers too but the one issuing the threats should get a reprimand.
The other thing I would like to point out is simply that if this same situation happened at a gas station or a grocery store it probably would not have caused the outcry that it did. If there was any news at all, it would be some 30 second spot on the local news and that would be the end of it. There environment of a college campus is seen as a more 'civilized' place where things that might occur out in the 'real world' simply do not occur there.
I have seen and heard of two circumstances of protests on campus one involving proper police intervention and one not. In one case the students were protesting the war on a grassy hill. The cops were out on the street watching them to make sure it was a peaceful protest. When a protester stepped out onto the street, they were arrested immediately since it is illegal to protest on the street. The was appropriate action.
In the other scenario, the students were protesting properly but time for some reason the police took aggressive action against the protesters. While simply standing there, a friend of mine was shot with a sandbag, maced, and intentionally rammed by a mounted officer. There was an incident of a man being shot by a sandbag while carrying his daughter on his shoulders. Luckily another protester caught the girl. This kind of action was egregious yet due to the climate at the time, the start of the Iraq war, nothing was done.

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-19-2006 12:24 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Silent H, posted 11-19-2006 4:00 PM Jazzns has not replied
 Message 58 by Chiroptera, posted 11-19-2006 4:04 PM Jazzns has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024