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.
Yes, we all hope they tried at diplomacy, but I doubt there was much back and forth to be had in a university library. I doubt that the kid in question was waving a gun at the officers. I doubt he was threatening the other students. He simply (as far as we know) did not have a UCLA ID and was in a library where such an ID was required.
The more important question is why is passive non-compliance equated with resistance? He was handcuffed. He had no means of escape. Why was it so important for him to "get up?" Why did he have to follow that order, especially after being electrocuted? He was already in police control and custody. Was not the order to "get up" just a power play on the LE part? The order to "get up" and his non-compliance just seems to give the police more reason to tase him again. It seems logical to follow the order to resist pain, but why should anyone follow such an order? Just because you don't have an ID and someone else has a gun and a badge?
Where is the real crime here?
I don't think 3+ officers really need to electrocute someone to subdue them after they have been handcuffed. No justification whatsoever.
™ Version 4.2
