Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   UCLA student tased multiple times... pointless police violence?
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 142 (364740)
11-19-2006 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Taz
11-18-2006 7:24 PM


An example of cultural hegemony.
Dang, I still have two posts I want to reply to, one of them now going on three weeks old. But I can never resist a chance to make an ass of myself.
The institutions of any society serve to reinforce the norms and structure and order of the society. This is a basic fact from anthropology. Another basic fact from anthropology is that the the norms of society and what people actually believe (even while acting according to the norms) are often very different.
The U.S. is a class based society. The institutions of the U.S. will serve to reinforce this. One role of law enforcement is to serve as the occupational forces in the urban areas to keep order among the lower classes. The other role is to harrass the members of the lower classes to remind them that they are the lower class and they have their proper role in society.
But we live in a society where we believe that our society is based on "liberty" and "democracy". We cannot admit that we act and expect others to act to reinforce the class distinctions in society. The upper classes don't want to admit to themselves that their lifestyles are based on the exploitation of others, they want to believe that they are good and decent people.
Law enforcement officers don't want to admit that, among other duties, they serve to maintain the class structure; they want to believe that they are upholding law and order (which, of course, they are, especially the "order" part), and so serving "freedom and democracy." This is especially important since law enforcement recruits heavily from the very classes that they are to control.
So we have (which is not uncommon among societies) a situation where people are acting to maintain a certain aspect of society without recognizing the true implications of their actions. Law enforcement officers, like people in many other sectors of society (including my own field of education, by the way) need to be trained to behave in a manner that will reinforce the class structure of our society, but at the same time the need to be trained to believe that they are serving a very different purpose.
So, seeing that there is a mismatch between beliefs of one's actions and their actual implications, it should not be surprising that there will be cases where actions will taken in inappropriate contexts. Here we have an example of where police officers, trained to believe they are upholding law and order, act out in that belief by identifying someone they believe is a threat to law and order and then apply techniques that are actually meant to keep certain social classes in their place.
It is also no surprise that many people who benefit from the current social structures as well as people who have been trained to believe that the primary purpose law enforcement are to "serve and protect" a society based on "liberty and democracy" are now trying to find reasonable reasons to exonerate the police officers involved. It is also not surprising that people who believe that the primary purpose law enforcement are to "serve and protect" a society based on "liberty and democracy" but recognize that this is not the case here are so confused about the situation. As I said, it is a basic fact from anthropology that people will not recognize how their behavior supports unspoken norms that are opposed to their acknowledged moral beliefs.
Edited by Chiroptera, : Remove inappropriat paragraph break.
Edited by Chiroptera, : Corrected typo and edited last sentence of the second to the last paragraph for clarity. Also decided to add a subtitle

Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Taz, posted 11-18-2006 7:24 PM Taz has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 47 of 142 (364742)
11-19-2006 1:09 PM


University of California Police Department's tazer policy
Found here. My commentary in italics, the policy is bolded.
(a) The potential for injury to the officer(s) or others if the technique is not used,
Very little potential for injury, no weapons present. The student was upset at being asked for an ID believing that he was being singled out due to race.
(b) The potential risk of serious injury to the individual being controlled,
Tasers can kill. Therefore, taser use should be employed only where serious threat to the safety of others is present. I fail to see how the police might think there was danger to others to the extent that a potentially lethal form of control is required.
(c) The degree to which the pain compliance technique may be controlled in application according to the level of resistance,
Level of resistence seemed completely passive in all cases after the initial tasering.
(d) The nature of the offense involved,
Outrage at being singled out on a random ID check, which became something of a minor disturbance with raised voices and some physical resistance to the police
(e) The level of resistance of the individual(s) involved,
(f) The need for prompt resolution of the situation,
None whatsoever. If anything use of a taser ensured the resolution will take much longer, the courts are going to be involved and a lengthy investigation (should hopefully) take place.
(g) If time permits (e.g. passive demonstrators), other reasonable alternatives.
There seems no reason why time wouldn't permit, he was clearly a passive demonstrator, therefore reasonable alternatives should have been used.

I think its clear that the officers in question were not abiding by their own policy. They weren't controlling the student, they were punishing him.

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-19-2006 1:36 PM Modulous has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 142 (364743)
11-19-2006 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Hyroglyphx
11-19-2006 12:24 PM


Freudian slip?
quote:
So, the point is, if you want to gain the respect of the public, just like a child, you have to offer boundaries.
Although I think you meant something else, I have to remark that this seems to betray a pretty typical attitude within most professions, namely you forget your proper role in society, and tend to think that society serves your profession rather than the other way around.
The public is not a child, and the public do not need boundaries. The public is the boss, and it is the public that places boundaries on law enforcement officials as well as the other professions. At least if this were an actual, properly functioning democracy.
Edited by Chiroptera, : Corrected my own "Freudian slip" in the subtitle.

Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-19-2006 12:24 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-19-2006 1:45 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 142 (364750)
11-19-2006 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Modulous
11-19-2006 1:09 PM


Re: University of California Police Department's tazer policy
Very little potential for injury, no weapons present. The student was upset at being asked for an ID believing that he was being singled out due to race.
First of all, you never know if a weapon is present or not. You always have to be on your guard against any such weapons. I will now direct you as to why its so important to mindful of it. Secondly, I don't need a weapon to pose a threat to someone, and I doubt that you do either.
As for the specious plea that he was being singled out for his race is often used as some sort of defense. That plea will be harder to prove considering that in the video I saw what appeared to be an Asian, Negro, and Caucasian police officers making the arrest.
Tasers can kill.
The lethality of tasers is nominal. I would venture to say that they pose as much a risk as pepper foam does. And the only way to die from pepper foam is if you go into anaphylactic shock due to an allergy from peppers. If they were truly very dangerous, they wouldn't be so widely used.
Therefore, taser use should be employed only where serious threat to the safety of others is present. I fail to see how the police might think there was danger to others to the extent that a potentially lethal form of control is required.
That's because it isn't designed to be lethal at all. Its desgined as a pain compliance tool, like pepper foam. Impact weapons and firearms is how you handle violent offenders.

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 47 by Modulous, posted 11-19-2006 1:09 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Modulous, posted 11-19-2006 4:07 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 50 of 142 (364753)
11-19-2006 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Hyroglyphx
11-19-2006 11:01 AM


Re: Reviewing the video
And what I saw and heard was a man asked to comply 79 times.
Right - and was complying when he was tasered. Once he was tasered, how could he comply?
That's what makes this use of force unreasonable. Your assumption of dastardly motives on the part of the student aren't relevant. He was complying, but they tasered him, and then tasered him some more when he couldn't continue to comply as a result of being tasered. They used their own brutality as an excuse for more brutality.
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.
It obviously is, and you've given the rationale why - the use of force doesn't make any sense any other way. Even bad cops don't typically taser people at random unless they have some kind of internal justification that they're in a dangerous situation.
That justification was an apparently arab man in front of them. Racist cops, abusing power. What, you can't imagine a world where that happens? What kinds of people do you think volunteerto be cops? People who want to help, sure, but also thugs.
Common sense would indicate that they went to take him in to custody.
For leaving a library? That's racist.
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.
That's what he was doing when he was tasered. Your analysis simply isn't consistent with the facts, and that's simply because you think criticizing a cop makes you a liberal hippy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-19-2006 11:01 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-19-2006 2:34 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 142 (364755)
11-19-2006 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Chiroptera
11-19-2006 1:16 PM


Re: Freudian slip?
The public is not a child, and the public do not need boundaries. The public is the boss, and it is the public that places boundaries on law enforcement officials as well as the other professions. At least if this were an actual, properly functioning democracy.
I was referring to that man and people like him, who like children, seek the line of demarcation in the interests of crossing that threshold. Call that basic human psychology or or simple common sense, but it exists.

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 48 by Chiroptera, posted 11-19-2006 1:16 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Chiroptera, posted 11-19-2006 1:51 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 142 (364756)
11-19-2006 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Hyroglyphx
11-19-2006 1:45 PM


Re: Freudian slip?
I realize that was what you meant. I was just pointing out that it is also not uncommon among members of a profession like law enforcement (and other professions like physicians, lawyers, and others; read Tal's posts concerning the military) to view the public with a degree of contempt, feeling that the public doesn't really understand the purposes of their profession, when it is the public (at least in a democracy) that decides on the purposes -- and therefore the behavior -- of the profession.
Edited to add:
I can't but help to wonder if that attitude might have been a factor in this particular incident.
Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given.

Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-19-2006 1:45 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 142 (364759)
11-19-2006 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by crashfrog
11-19-2006 1:43 PM


Re: Reviewing the video
Once he was tasered, how could he comply?
Simple. Stand up. I think many people in here don't understand how tasers work. They incapacitate someone while they are being shocked. Once the current stops they regain all of their motor functions. Its no different from suffering a minor, low voltage shock. It hurts. It sucks. Nobody likes it. But there is no lasting damage. Therefore, usually that pain is a great motivator, which is why it was invented.
That's what makes this use of force unreasonable. Your assumption of dastardly motives on the part of the student aren't relevant. He was complying, but they tasered him, and then tasered him some more when he couldn't continue to comply as a result of being tasered. They used their own brutality as an excuse for more brutality.
Crash, we have no idea what precipitated the initial tasering. What we do know is that he refused to get up and walk out, even after knowing full-well that would taser him again. We also know that he was lucid, and spoke in full, clear sentences. Its not like he was injured and physically couldn't comply. What else could you conclude except that he was playing a game?
It obviously is, and you've given the rationale why - the use of force doesn't make any sense any other way. Even bad cops don't typically taser people at random unless they have some kind of internal justification that they're in a dangerous situation.
That's because tasers aren't often used in 'dangerous' situations. Their primary function is pain compliance. The idea is that brandishing it alone is enough to make someone comply. If it doesn't, perhaps a jolt will. I will post instances caught on video of taserings. You tell me whether or not you believe the use was justified.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WSpU56cj7E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSG19c3elhQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQVE3xiJI9U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEAqJ0BPd0g&mode=related&...
Now, we've seen four instances of the employment of tasers by four separate law enforcement institutions. Los Angelas, CA - Spokane, WA -Cincinnati, OH - Boyton Beach, FL - and the Ohio state troopers. One of two options here. Either the entire body of law enforcement is crazy, or you don't have the first clue as to how to conduct law enforcement. I'm gonna on the side of caution here and roll with Occam's Razor on this one. In each instance that you've seen, the offender was given ample time to comply with orders. The use of the taser was only well after the individuals refused to comply. Its really a very simple concept. If you resist its just going to make it worse. If you comply, everything will be fine.
That justification was an apparently arab man in front of them. Racist cops, abusing power. What, you can't imagine a world where that happens? What kinds of people do you think volunteerto be cops? People who want to help, sure, but also thugs.
The problem, I suspect, is that you can't imagine a world devoid of that. What justification do you have for assuming that it was racially motivated? I mean, the way you'd seem to have it, Arabs would be immune from the law simply because it might be misconstrued as racism.
That's what he was doing when he was tasered. Your analysis simply isn't consistent with the facts, and that's simply because you think criticizing a cop makes you a liberal hippy.
I've already posted several things criticizing cops-- so, so much for that. And our friend in the library is far from hippy.

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 50 by crashfrog, posted 11-19-2006 1:43 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by crashfrog, posted 11-19-2006 2:55 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 60 by jar, posted 11-19-2006 4:17 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 54 of 142 (364762)
11-19-2006 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Hyroglyphx
11-19-2006 2:34 PM


Re: Reviewing the video
They incapacitate someone while they are being shocked. Once the current stops they regain all of their motor functions. Its no different from suffering a minor, low voltage shock.
No, it is different, because it's a high voltage, pulsed shock. The effects of that aren't just shrugged off; the pain continues after the impusle is discontinued, it takes time to regain control of your muscles.
Rather than accusing your opponents of being ignorant of how Tasers work, you should research the issue yourself. The fact that you think you can simply get right back up from one of these with no time whatsoever to orient yourself and regain control of your faculties shows, quite frankly, you have no idea about how these weapons work.
Crash, we have no idea what precipitated the initial tasering.
We do know. The fact that you refuse to believe that a policeman is incapable of doing what these guys did is irrelevant.
What we do know is that he refused to get up and walk out, even after knowing full-well that would taser him again.
What we know is that there's every possibility that he simply couldn't get up, and there's absolutely no protocol for police to taser a subject simply because they're inert. The man posed no danger, the response was simply disproportionate and only occured because the cops were afraid of what an Arab-looking man might have up his sleeve (or strapped to his chest, etc.) Racist fears, in other words.
That's because tasers aren't often used in 'dangerous' situations. Their primary function is pain compliance.
No. Their primary function is to disable attackers without resorting to more lethal weapons, like firearms. It's not safe to shoot someone with a taser. Healthy people can take it for short periods, but anybody with a cardiovascular issue has a risk of dying; and if you require a pacemaker or are at a risk for tachycardia you're as good as dead.
They're not a magic restraining device. They're a means of suppression designed to be less lethal than firearms, but the risk of injury is still severe. It's so great, several police officers have sued TASER International due to injuries they sustained as a result of being tasered during training. If these things are hurting trained polive officers, it's impossible to say that they're just a harmless means of causing pain. There's no harmless way to cause pain. Period.
In each instance that you've seen, the offender was given ample time to comply with orders.
So what? The fact that some other cops in a totally seperate situation used the taser in a proper manner has nothing to do with this case.
If you comply, everything will be fine.
And you know this how? Your faith in human beings to never, ever take advantage of their power over another person?
Are you just naive, or what?
The problem, I suspect, is that you can't imagine a world devoid of that. What justification do you have for assuming that it was racially motivated?
The facts of the case: he looked like an Arab, and they had no other reason to taser him.
Are you telling me that, in the post-9/11 world, cops don't occasionally over-react to Arab-looking guys? Tell that to the unarmed brazillian electrician that the London police gunned down in the subway two years ago. Antsy cops do dumb things. To suggest otherwise is to betray an astounding naivete about what people do when they're scared.
I mean, the way you'd seem to have it, Arabs would be immune from the law simply because it might be misconstrued as racism.
No, I just think that they should be immune from being tasered over and over again just because they were leaving a library. But I guess in your fantasy world where racism is a thing of the past, it's impossible for you to even admit that the facts of this case even happened.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-19-2006 2:34 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 142 (364765)
11-19-2006 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Dr Jack
11-19-2006 7:37 AM


Re: Reviewing the video
quote:
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?
Because the problem wasn't just to eject the person from the premises. The person was questioning and resisting the official representatives of the authority of the state. Any resistance to the state at all can become a terrible example to others that will serve to undermine obedience public order.
The sad thing is that it doesn't matter whether the civilian was innocent or guilty, and it doesn't matter whether the the officers will be reprimanded or seriously punished. This incident will have served its purpose. Even if the officers in this case are punished, it will be in the minds of everyone who may be stopped or even harassed by a police officer that the police officer can resort to extreme violence at the slightest provocation. In the end, many people will be more likely to comply meekly with the demands of any officer regardless of how unreasonable those demands are.

Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Dr Jack, posted 11-19-2006 7:37 AM Dr Jack has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by mick, posted 11-21-2006 9:07 AM Chiroptera has not replied

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


Message 56 of 142 (364768)
11-19-2006 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Hyroglyphx
11-19-2006 12:24 PM


Re: Gaining Compliance
First let me say that I enjoy your eloquence as always, and am particularly glad for it here. I think we have very different ideas about LE, which of course may stem from how we view law and gov't itself. Even with those differences in mind, I do not view your position as wildly errant and in fact you sound like the type of reasonable officer I'd like to encounter.
And that's part of the problem. You aren't necessarily the typical officer. Just as it is true one cannot go into a situation believing the student, one cannot go into the situation believing the officers. I cannot judge their behavior based on the way YOU approach your work. These guys can be incompetents or they can be malicious thugs.
As I said... and I note you did not deal with... I have witnessed a situation almost exactly like this where officers were in the wrong.
I think you are cutting these guys slack using assumptions based on your shared field, rather than looking more critically at what you actually have available here. Just like the other officers did at that other instance, arguing theory in order to counter evidence available. Yeah one cannot say conclusively anything, but one can deal with the facts at hand.
Call me a traditionalist if you will, but my understanding of laws is that they are pointless without enforcement
I agree with this. The question is in which way are they enforced? To what end? Since you later reject the mechanistic approach we have some area in common. In a nonmechanistic scenario it comes down to officer discretion. Some use that term to mean whatever the officer wants as he is in charge.
I come from a different angle and view it as a challenge for the officer to do what is best to resolve the situation within the limits given to LE. One of the major factors is creating a result which furthers peace and order and respect for authority. One of the worst self-perpetuating problems is for law enforcement to lose respect from the people they are working for.
However, he was asked numerous times to comply. That's where a simple infraction becomes obstruction, which is a much more serious offense.
This is a perfect example of where we begin to part company. This does not appear to have been a serious offense. It was a guy without an ID in a library. It is up for the police on hand to figure out how to handle it. Pick your battles and all.
The story as so far revealed is that he refused to show ID (as a protest) and refused to leave. According to the person and witnesses, when the police arrived he was already moving to the door. That is what we have to work with, unless you are going to discount the witnesses. Yeah, witnesses can be wrong but the more unconnected (to the student) witnesses there are the less likely they would be wrong (or lying) about something so simple as whether he was walking to the door.
According to the student... and in hindsight we know he IS a student and so had a right to be there... they stopped him on his way to the door by grabbing his arm. Why would they need to do that? Why would they have to confront him at all if he is moving toward the door? Would you agree that if the witnesses are correct that he was moving toward the door and the officers prevented it, they screwed up at this point? If not why not?
Lets pretend for sake of argument that he was not moving for the door. It appears that the CSOs had confronted him and protest or no, student or no, they did have a right to ask for his removal. Presumably that is why they called the police and the police would naturally take that seriously as they came in. They were there to remove the student.
The scenario then begins with them asking him to leave or whatever, and he goes limp. It doesn't matter how many times they ask him to leave. Once the guy goes limp its over. One can use simple pain techniques to induce movement, or much more easily they can pick him up and throw him out. As noted by someone else earlier bouncers do it all the time.
If anyone came up and asked what they were doing they could say they were tossing the guy out.
There was no serious offense. He drew his line of protest over having to show an ID (or being asked because of profiling) and went limp... remove him. Bye bye. If he tried to get back in then arrest him. Or if the CSOs requested it, arrest him anyway.
Where did the taser come in?
UCLA said the police decided to use the Taser to incapacitate Tabatabainejad only after the student urged other library patrons to join his resistance.
This is THEIR excuse (and why would they lie?). The guy was asking others to join his resistance so they taser him. That is not to protect themselves, that is to simply shut someone up. You can easily see in the video that police were not being surrounded in such a way that anyone but a complete chickenshit would think that the student's call for communal resistance would be answered by violent uprising. As it was he was being passive (even if loud). Thus that would seem to suggest passive resistance. Okay so maybe more people to be carried out?
And lets for sake of argument say that they were surrounded and felt like a riot could break out if this guy kept calling for help... how was tasering going to help? It seems to me a reasonable person would realize the results would be what you saw, which was only an increase in resentment from the people there.
Why couldn't they continue to carry the guy screaming from the building? Unless students were blocking their way (which you can see in the video is not the case) there was nothing preventing them from ejecting him relatively peacefully.
Based on available evidence, and even cutting them a lot of slack, they screwed up.
Obstruction and resisting is the offense that we're dealing with.
That is not that serious of an offense... really. I suppose it would if you meant obstructing a murder investigation and resisting arrest by use of violence. That was not the case, even by UCLA admission. It was a public nuisance who disregarded CSOs and AT WORST (disregarding witnesses) decided on a course of passive resistance and called for people to join him. That this might happen on a liberal campus should not be shocking, nor cause for alarm.
The result of allowing a child to cry itself out, or sitting and stewing, is not pandemonium or lawlessness. It does not give them the illusion that they have more power than you. It is when they present a physical challenge (ie violence) that the stakes are actually raised.
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?
Respect for law and the officers which uphold it is of serious consquence. If an action might be the right legal move or effect one person's attitude in a positive way, while pissing many others off, it is not worthwhile in the long run.
I'm not arguing inaction but rather a more accurate understanding of their surroundings and what it means toward the ultimate goal, rather than getting caught up in stupid ego challenges by individuals. In this case my thoughts are (if witnesses are right) he should have simply been watched to make sure he left. If he didn't leave then ask him to leave again with a clear statement that he'd be ejected. If that failed, then increasing levels of physical interaction to remove him. There is no longer any reason to yell or say anything else to him. Why would there be? Take him outside and watch to make sure he does not return. If he does or became physical then arrest him.
I suppose if he screamed enough and got people riled up he could also be arrested.
They did not need to use overt violence (including tasering) unless they were faced with real violence. I mean its not like this was one lone cop against some huge guy, where the threat of real violence possibly overcoming the officer was imminent.
So, the point is, if you want to gain the respect of the public, just like a child, you have to offer boundaries.
I can only agree with this up to a point. You are right that LE cannot allow itself to be seen as powerless, and setting some borders is part of that. But there is a point where LE becomes equally a child pushing boundaries which the public answers with their power.
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.
I watched the clip. Was there something I missed? You have more than one officer and a single male who is making a lot of noise. Many people slowly gathered as the events continued. Their tasering clearly irritated bystanders more than anything the guy was doing. At no point did I see anything that should have elicited fear in an officer. They weren't a crowd of prisoners or even a large crowd on a street. They were college kids in a library.
unless you are in that situation, its not something you can really appreciate until you are in such a situation.
I have not been in LE but I most certainly have been in crowd control situations where aggressiveness and violence were imminent... even swinging arms. I didn't see ANYTHING in that tape that would have caused me fear. Confusion and irritation? Yeah. Fear? No.
I believe that LE officers should have more courage than the average person, including me.
Nonetheless, he should have been reprimanded by his watch commander or patrol supervisor.
Right, now lets start piecing things together. We have the luxury of hindsight here. You see at lease one case of an officer acting in a threatening and inappropriate manner to someone. Witnesses claim that that is how they behaved to more than one person, including the student in question. Why am I to believe that incident was an exception to their overall behavior?
I have posted three instances of what real police brutality looks like. I'm not unreasonable.
Others have suggested that this is a case of police brutality. Why does your opinion count more? Although it may be a result of negligence and lack of discipline rather than outright malevolence, and not as physically destructive as other cases, I don't think that makes it less a case of police brutality. That sort of thing is not graded on a curve.
This is not an egregious case of police brutality. But it is an inappropriate use of force which amounts to police brutality.
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.
Heheheh... here is where we seriously part company. That IS a protest. Protests can range from peaceful demonstrations with full permits, to peacefully engaging in illegal acts. In many cases it becomes necessary to cross the line to give a protest teeth. Its that whole defining boundaries things.
I do agree that LE has the right to arrest such protestors, but that does not change the fact that it is a valid form of protest.
We are compelled to violate those laws which are felt unjust, and impede activities which are unjust. Some have called such things a duty, as rules are unlikely to change otherwise. Certainly our founding fathers set high precedents for valid protests which are clearly illegal. Boston Tea party anyone?
Now let me give you an example. In Chicago, protestors of the Iraq War deviated onto one of the busiest roads, blocking traffic for some amount of time, then circled back to occupy a large portion of the Magnificent Mile. Clearly this was illegal and highly disruptive (though no destruction of property). Yet police (out in large numbers) did NOT charge in and break it up. In the end that tactic worked far better than what Chicago police tried in '68.
Sometimes attempting to enforce law in an immediate sense is counterproductive to the longterm goal of law. In this particular case officers overreacted and injured not only an individual in the immediate sense, but helped undermine longterm public confidence in the process.

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 44 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-19-2006 12:24 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-20-2006 1:01 PM Silent H has replied

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


Message 57 of 142 (364770)
11-19-2006 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Jazzns
11-19-2006 12:50 PM


Re: Gaining Compliance
But with the absence of that information, it is the student that was in the wrong.
Well everyone is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty so I'm not sure we can say he was wrong in the absence of information.
As it is we have witnesses claiming that the police stopped the guy from leaving. Why would they lie? The University itself stated that the reason they shocked him was because he was yelling for others to join his protest... not because he became violent. Why would they lie?
Unless the evidence we do have is wrong, then the officers went beyond their limits. That they clearly threatened students who were not actually being violent only supports witness testimony we have regarding their behavior.
with the potential to cause more violence.
But the only people causing violence were the police! The guy was by all accounts engaging in passive resistance which involves no violence. He yelled a lot but that is not violence. Further you had students standing around yelling to stop or just observing.

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 45 by Jazzns, posted 11-19-2006 12:50 PM Jazzns has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 142 (364771)
11-19-2006 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Jazzns
11-19-2006 12:50 PM


Re: Gaining Compliance
quote:
But with the absence of that information, it is the student that was in the wrong.
What more information do you need? The video that nemesis himself supplied has a sound track that has the officers shouting, "Stand up! Stand up!" Not, "Quit fighting," or, "Let go," or even "Be quiet!" That in itself seems to indicate that the student wasn't posing any threat beyond simply not complying with an order to stand up.

Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Jazzns, posted 11-19-2006 12:50 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Jazzns, posted 11-19-2006 11:51 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 59 of 142 (364772)
11-19-2006 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Hyroglyphx
11-19-2006 1:36 PM


Re: University of California Police Department's tazer policy
First of all, you never know if a weapon is present or not. You always have to be on your guard against any such weapons. I will now direct you as to why its so important to mindful of it. Secondly, I don't need a weapon to pose a threat to someone, and I doubt that you do either.
Yes, one has to be mindful that weapons can be present. That does not give you an excuse to throw a grenade into a house before raiding it. It does not justify shooting an upset girl whose boyfriend stole her car. It does not justify tasering somebody who is upset that the police are being heavy handed.
Even if the initial tasering can be justified, all subsequent ones were uneccesary. He was handcuffed and could be searched for weapons.
As for the specious plea that he was being singled out for his race is often used as some sort of defense. That plea will be harder to prove considering that in the video I saw what appeared to be an Asian, Negro, and Caucasian police officers making the arrest.
I don't see what difference the race of the police officers in question make when his complaint was that he was being singled out for being middle eastern.
It could be that you think that it is my complaint that it was racially motivated. I don't know if it was - but I do know that institutional racism has plagued various police authorities for a long time, and is well documented.
What I also know is that the reports state the suspect was upset over being singled out for being middle eastern. This would tend to be reinforced by his references to the PATRIOT act.
The lethality of tasers is nominal. I would venture to say that they pose as much a risk as pepper foam does. And the only way to die from pepper foam is if you go into anaphylactic shock due to an allergy from peppers. If they were truly very dangerous, they wouldn't be so widely used.
I did not say they were lethal. They are less-lethal weapons. I'm not suggesting they are truly very dangerous. I am merely commenting on the police's own policy guidelines:
quote:
(b) The potential risk of serious injury to the individual being controlled,
Being hit by a taser can cause injuries indirectly, such as biting the tongue or hitting the head aganist the floor. As such - the police are required to bare in mind the potential for injury and whether potentially causing injury is warranted.
Also, tasering itself can lead to death. For example if he had a medical condition (it is reported he stated he had a medical condition), or if he had taken stimulants.
As such, the police should weigh these into their decision. Unless the suspect is posing some kind of threat - thus must be removed quickly - tasering is not necessary and alternative methods should be employed. Those same methods that are used succesfully by police that don't have tasers.
That's because it isn't designed to be lethal at all. Its desgined as a pain compliance tool, like pepper foam. Impact weapons and firearms is how you handle violent offenders.
I didn't say it was designed to be lethal. I said that that 'taser use should be employed only where serious threat to the safety of others is present. I fail to see how the police might think there was danger to others to the extent that a potentially lethal form of control is required.'

You didn't comment on the policy guidelines themselves. That they specifically discuss that tasers should only when the situation merits it. It specifically states that passive demonstrators should be dealt with in other ways, time permitting. There was no other time pressures on the police at the scene. They simply had to get him out of the building.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-19-2006 1:36 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-21-2006 9:42 PM Modulous has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 60 of 142 (364773)
11-19-2006 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Hyroglyphx
11-19-2006 2:34 PM


Based on the evidence that YOU cited...
Still waiting for a response to Message 39.
You provided a link to a procedures manual as part of your support for your position back in Message 30 wich can be found at comprehensive training manual.
According to the very manual that you cited the rentacops screwed up and did not follow the Response Matrix that can be found on page 4 of the manual you cited.
In addition, a host of other options have been presented by myself and others.
Do you agree that according to the very Response Matrix that you cited the rentacops did NOT follow procedure?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-19-2006 2:34 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Modulous, posted 11-19-2006 5:24 PM jar has not replied
 Message 70 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-21-2006 7:05 PM jar 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