Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   UCLA student tased multiple times... pointless police violence?
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 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

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 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

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 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 5820 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

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 63 of 142 (364831)
11-20-2006 6:02 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Jazzns
11-19-2006 11:51 PM


discussing police brutality
NJ does make some good points about escalation, I just no longer agree that they were applied appropriately in this circumstance.
He most certainly did make some good points, but I think this reveals a problem with discussing specific cases of LE activity.
When a particular case is brought to attention, it has been my experience that LE officers almost always shift discussion to general theories as well as practical experience in OTHER cases.
That is to say there is a switch from discussing the merits of a specific case, to anything BUT that specific case. And it is usually something people can agree to to some extent. Unfortunately agreement on those issues have nothing to do with the case. When the case is mentioned it is always caveated by not knowing the full situation. Yeah, we can all agree to that too. We don't know the whole story... but that cuts both ways.
What that leaves us to comment on is not what might have been, what theory says, or what practical issues have been found in other cases, but simply what we have available.
We CAN discuss conclusions that can be drawn (even if we agree they are tentative) based on the evidence at hand. But as I said that is usually avoided to give officers the benefit of the doubt, appealing to mistakes in OTHER cases, or procedural rules they are likely to be following.
I guess I can't blame LE officers for doing this as it is basic nature to associate and defend one's "own" from outside criticism. But it is something that has to be understood and overcome when looking at any specific case.
From what we have available, both video and witness testimony as well as UCLA admission for why the kid was shocked, it seems pretty clear cut. Discussions of theory are smokescreens. The only thing which will change this is solid evidence which calls events in the video as well as witness testimony into question.

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 62 by Jazzns, posted 11-19-2006 11:51 PM Jazzns has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 68 of 142 (365104)
11-21-2006 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Hyroglyphx
11-20-2006 1:01 PM


official transcript
Mmmm... to cut things down let's drop the issues of what the typical LE officer is like, as well as whether LE officers tend to approach these issues with a biased eye. Clearly we have different personal experiences, but they are tangential to the thread topic, so we can leave it at that.
I know what a cop who looses control looks like. This usually happens when they are very scared and those reactive instincts begin to take over. Watching the video, I didn't see that. They didn't lose control. Losing control would entail hitting the man, screaming unduly at him or at the crowd of bystanders, using profane or demeaning language. I didn;t see any of that.
??? I know what a person acting like a power hungry prick looks like, and that's what I saw with at least one of the cops. I'm not saying they did what they did because they were afraid or "lost control" of themselves. From my viewpoint (watching the tape), and witness description, they were in control of themselves, but acting callously and negligently.
But uh, as far as hitting the guy, screaming unduly in general, and using demeaning language to the bystanders: They shocked the guy, they kept yelling at him when it obviously didn't make a difference, and threatened bystanders with tasering.
But this kid was clearly not too bright.
I'm not sure where you get that assessment.
Even when you are faced with a bad cop who has a terrible attitude, you shirk it off until they leave and go through the proper channels, i.e. his employer. Popping off at the mouth, whether you are in the right or not, is pointless. It will get you nowhere.
That is a practical position, not an objectively correct position. When you have a "bad cop" on your hands, its every man for himself on how to deal with it. There is nothing wrong with standing one's ground... even if it means you will soon be kicked down.
In this case the guy went limp. IIRC I did not hear any direct anti-authority screaming until after he was shocked. If I was engaged in passive resistance and someone hit me with a taser I might very well be "motivated" to add some flavor to the screams. That is after all exactly what a taser is going to do, PUSH the subject to do SOMETHING in an aggravated fashion. The hope is that it will cause the person to move, but it could simply make a person scream louder and with less discretion.
If that's what happened. If the officers actually grabbed him and stopped him form leaving, then yes, that's a big problem. But if they simply touched him and said, "Hey, let me talk to you for a minute," and he flew into a rage, then the officers are still justified.
Well we can say "if" about anything. The OP presents a situation and we can only make an assessment based on what we are given. Obviously IF it is not as described in the material available then our assessment would be wrong. I'm nost suggesting that we decide a court case on this... but we can generate a preliminary conclusion.
The subject and separate witnesses claim that he was moving toward the door when they approached and stopped him. We can assume for sake of argument that it was simply to do what you said. Why should they interfere with him at all, if he was moving toward the door? And in any case there is no indication that he "flew into a rage". He went limp.
we don't even have consensus on whether or not the man did anything wrong. Should he even have been arrested, or should they have left the scene? We keep going back and forth with the best to affect the arrest or whether what he did was even an arrestable offense.
I'm sorry I should have made my comments clearer. I was making an assumption for the worse possible case (for the student). From what I have seen he was violating a policy and those who owned the facility wanted him out. They had that right. He of course decided to protest the policy with them. When police arrived he, once stopped, continued his protest.
Trespassing, obstruction, and disturbing the peace are all legal offenses. So yeah he could be arrested. Whether he should is up to UCLA or the officers. I think kicking him out would have been enough.
Regardless, it is how he was removed that is the prime issue, not how he was going to be processed.
Do you have a transcript? I'd like to read their official statement... Whether the man called for an uprising is irrelevant. And if their department issued that as the official reason why, that is a bunch of b.s.
Ask and ye shall receive. Here is the relevant excerpt...
Since, after repeated requests, he would neither leave nor show identification, the CSO notified UCPD officers, who responded and asked Tabatabainejad to leave the premises multiple times. He continued to refuse. As the officers attempted to escort him out, he went limp and continued to refuse to cooperate with officers or leave the building.
Tabatabainejab encouraged library patrons to join his resistance. A crowd gathering around the officers and Tabatebainejad's continued resistance made it urgent to remove Tabatabainejad from the area. The officers deemed it necessary to use the Taser in a "drive stun" capacity.
Start by noting that this release conflicts with eyewitness testimony of what occured before he went limp. But we can deal with it from that point on.
Honestly, does what they say make any sense to you? As you say you did not hear him asking anyone to join him. You can see the "crowd" in the video. Do they really seem menacing or something that should have changed how they were handling the situation?
I'm not sure where "urgency" shows up in that matrix you presented on allowing tasering as opposed to less violent methods available to them.
Finally, this release doesn't quite cover why students asking for officer badge #'s were answered by threats of tasering.

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 65 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-20-2006 1:01 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 79 of 142 (365309)
11-22-2006 5:37 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Hyroglyphx
11-21-2006 9:42 PM


Re: University of California Police Department's tazer policy
I still maintain that the man could have avoided all of that by simply complying.
Perhaps, with the exception of his going limp and yelling does not inherently lead to getting tasered. He believed he was sticking up for his rights.
It appears he did not realize the extent to which they would go, but why should he want to avoid it even if he did? Part of passive resistance is to show the overaggressiveness of those that enforce the law, while making people aware of an incorrect law.
I'm not going to debate whether he was "profiled" or not. I think likely not. But that is besides the point. That is what he started out defying and continued to defy. Ironically the cops on scene were idiots enough to play right into it.
I would agree that the taser was essentially an ineffective tool and they should have gone to another method.
That is a very distanced attitude and one that makes no sense from a civil rights standpoint. I mean at that rate one could downplay anything... Ah well, shooting the guy in the foot was ineffective so they should have gone to another method.
Not only did it end up being ineffective, it was unnecessary (admittedly as they had other methods), and other methods used less violence to achieve their end goal. That alone adds up to police brutality.
This is in addition that their use of that weapon was agitating everyone else around them. They were getting direct feedback from their "boss" that this method was uncalled for and should be stopped. Instead they continued to do so and threatened those around them with the same treatment.
This is simply inexcusable. It isn't a huge graphic thing like more obvious cases. But it is still pretty blatant.
Police officers are beyond reproach until it is demonstrably proven that they have engaged in any wrongdoing.
Ahem... I'd agree with innocent until proven guilty. Beyond reproach is going a little bit too far. In this case the officers could potentially be found not guilty of a crime, but that hardly leaves them beyond reproach for their actions.
I will agree that I doubt race had anything to do with anything, other than that was how the student viewed what was happening. That's why he was protesting initially, whether he was right or wrong in his assumption.
One has a right to protest and not get beaten down for it, even if one is mistaken.

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 72 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-21-2006 9:42 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 82 of 142 (365547)
11-23-2006 6:37 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Hyroglyphx
11-22-2006 5:43 PM


Re: Reviewing the video
I will stay active as a counter to your position in this thread...
His charge likely read, "Obstruction" or "Resisting Arrest."
In case you missed it, in one of my last posts to you I linked to the University's public statement on the incident. You are correct on what the charge was, but uhm... they do continue to claim something you admit does not appear to be the case on the video.
asking someone to get up after they've been arrested is a reasonable request.
Yes, but it becomes unreasonable when such requests are repeated when they clearly will not be complied with, are shouted for no real reason, and accompanied closely with tasering.

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 81 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-22-2006 5:43 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024