Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8803 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-21-2017 1:17 AM
389 online now:
dwise1, PaulK, ramoss (3 members, 386 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: DC85
Post Volume:
Total: 822,741 Year: 27,347/21,208 Month: 1,260/1,714 Week: 103/365 Day: 7/52 Hour: 1/6

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
45
6
78910Next
Author Topic:   UCLA student tased multiple times... pointless police violence?
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7508
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 76 of 142 (365270)
11-21-2006 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Hyroglyphx
11-21-2006 9:42 PM


Did the violence have a point?
Well, I still maintain that the man could have avoided all of that by simply complying. At the same time, I would agree that the taser was essentially an ineffective tool and they should have gone to another method.

Obviously he could have avoided it had he just complied. The US has a wonderful history, however, of not mindlessly obeying authority figures. People can expect to be forcibly evicted or even arrested for passive resistance, but they should not expect to be tasered into obedience.

If you agree that that the taser was not the right tool for the job you are partway to agreeing that its use was excessive. I'm sure we'd agree that bamboo shoots under the fingernails is excessive, so its just a matter of establishing a line. The police drew the line with their policies and that matrix.

Police officers are beyond reproach until it is demonstrably proven that they have engaged in any wrongdoing.

I am not blaming anybody or accusing anyone of racism. A person is perfectly entitled to feel unfairly treated, and to express that. Tasering somebody who feels unfairly treated will not solve the problem, but exacerbate it.

It makes no odds whether or not he was being unfairly treated.

Aside from which, was it determined that the librarians made the call and the police responded? If that's the case, that puts a damper on the whole racism charge.

Yes. I'm not saying the police were racist. I'm saying that the student felt singled out by the library staff/CSOs. According to his statement, he expressed this, asked that other students be asked for IDs for fairness this was refused and he was asked to leave. He finished off the work he was doing and got up to leave. At which point the police arrived, and he became upset with being prevented from leaving.

Well, what a convenient defense.... LOL! That way, whenever a person from Middle Eastern decent has done anything wrong, they can always fall back on this in order to place the arresting party on trial.

It isn't a defense. It is a description of the event. When you encounter somebody who is not being aggressive but feels discriminated against, you don't strong arm them you try and calm them down. If they leaving, you let them leave and offer your support.

You don't grab hold of them, taser them, handcuff them, and taser them over and over again.

Unless there is any evidence that this student was being threatened we should assume he was innocent. That rightly puts the pressure on the police to prove that the actions they took can be justified. Until the police can give a decent rationale, and given the evidence so far presented regarding proper use of tasers, the video evidence, witness accounts and the student's statements, alongside the police statements...I'm going for excessive cruel behavior from the police.

Modulous, anything has the potential for injury. A man attacking a police officer may indirectly hit their head on the floor during an ensuing struggle and bite their tongue. Does that mean that takedown maneuvors should be outlawed?

No. What I am saying is precisely what the taser policy states. That the potential for injury should be considered. Was there a need, in this case, to risk seriously injuring this student (and some of the bystanders) by tasering? No - control could easily have been asserted more effectively and more humanely in a different way. Thus: tasers should not have been used, especially after the first jolt.

The fact is, I can't find a single case of someone dying as the result of being tasered, not to say that it isn't possible.

Really? I went to google and typed taser death and the first article discusses a conservative figure of five deaths and seventy as an upper boundary.

That's not a good enough reason to abandone the whole project. You'd have to show that tasers routinely cause death or serious injury. Otherwise, just about everything could be outlawed. Hell, we take medications that pose a greater threat than tasers ever could.

It seems you think I am spouting off some anti-taser propaganda in an attempt to convince people they should never be used. On the contrary, I think that after suitable safety testing and regulation they can be used as a safer alternative to firearms. I'd rather be unfairly tased than unfairly shot, even if the latter is more unlikely than the former.

The alternative is hitting them with a big stick. I don't need any medical documentation to show how much worse batons are.

Batons don't have to be used as blunt weapons, they can also be used very well to apply to pressure points, engage join locks, or if necessary throttles. I'm not saying that a baton is better in all cases. I simply said that the police have found ways of dealing with lone passive protesters in the past without the need to engage in anything more violent than dragging them out on their heels.

Serious threats require firearms. I guess we'd have to first come to an agreement on what constitutes a serious threat.

Somebody actively acting aggressively and not necessarily in a lethal manner would be an ideal time for taser. Somebody wielding a knife would be a good one for tasers. Even if the threat was just that somebody could get more hurt than a few scratches or bruises might be a good time to crank out a taser. All those times when a gun would also work, but where a gun isn't really necessary.

It was implied, based on audio, that he was becoming combative, but I can't say for sure.

You're the only one that gets this from the audio though. I'm hearing somebody loudly protesting about a police officer grabbing him. Personally, I think you should probably expect consequences for fighting the police even at such a minor level, and the kid would have had no sympathy from me for being tased that first time. I might have thought 'a little bit excessive' or I might have not.

When I first read the OP title I was convinced I was going to come in here and find out that the student was being hostile and so got tased for it. I have great confidence that a lot of the time, the police in question were in a tough spot and may have made a mistake, but rarely would they be brutal.

We're all human too - and the multiple stunning situation we saw here is, as you accept, not necessary. It was, as such, a few police officers engaging in unnecessary pain application in an almost punitive manner. There may be no lasting bruises but applying pain to somebody unnecessarily is generally frowned upon. If the taser was an ineffective tool (as you say) we can safely say that the violence caused to this young man was without any point (it had no effect). One comes to the inevitable conclusion that this was pointless police violence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-21-2006 9:42 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
Sour
Member (Idle past 1132 days)
Posts: 63
From: I don't know but when I find out there will be trouble. (Portsmouth UK)
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 77 of 142 (365271)
11-21-2006 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Hyroglyphx
11-21-2006 9:42 PM


Re: University of California Police Department's tazer policy
Hi NJ,

The fact is, I can't find a single case of someone dying as the result of being tasered, not to say that it isn't possible.

I wonder what you would regard as evidence of someone dying as the result of being tasered. While it may be that no one has died during a tasering there is evidence to suggest that tasers have been contributing factors.

The Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (UK MOD agency) states :

"At least 16 deaths have been associated with their use in North America, albeit nearly all in connection with people using drugs, so Dstl not only has to check their general effect on people but also whether drugs such as cocaine make the heart more vulnerable to the pulses. So far there has been no evidence that a taser in isolation has directly killed an individual."
http://www.dstl.gov.uk/science_spot/shoot_to_stun.php

Further, there is easily locatable documentation on the internet of coroners stating that tasers have been factors in individuals deaths.

Police officers are beyond reproach until it is demonstrably proven that they have engaged in any wrongdoing.

It is only police officers who are beyond reproach, or everyone? I am certainly able to disapprove of a police officers actions if I disagree with them, why do you think I shouldn't?

Well, I still maintain that the man could have avoided all of that by simply complying.

But why should he? He was not presenting a physical threat. He could expect to removed from the premises with appropriate force. To claim that this requires use of pain compliance is thuggery.

You spoke earlier in the thread of the need for boundaries, is it up to the public or our employees to determine the boundaries?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-21-2006 9:42 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2170
From: Big Spring, TX, USA
Joined: 03-18-2006
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 78 of 142 (365286)
11-22-2006 2:11 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Hyroglyphx
11-21-2006 10:25 PM


Re: Taser Deaths
NJ writes:

This inquiry appears to be very misleading.

I don't see how it is misleading to take all known deaths that occurred after being tasered and then trying to determine the cause of death. This is what a scientist would do, take ALL the evidence and then determine if ANY may be related to tasering, not just take the first eight and pronounce the purpose of the study misleading.

The article clearly states:

quote:
In 27 cases, medical examiners said Tasers were a cause, a contributing factor or could not be ruled out in someone's death.

The article did not say that every case was a cause, contributing factor, or could not be ruled out, it said in 27 cases out of the 167 studied the medical examiners determined tasering either did or may have contributed to death.

Instead of looking at just the first 8 cases, why not look at the first 100 and then make a determination with a larger sample size. If you had considered such a notion you should have noticed:

11. Eddie Alvarado, 32, Los Angeles, June 10, 2002
Alvarado died after being shot five times with a Taser by Los Angeles police officers in 2002. He was fighting with officers after having a seizure. The coroner said he died from a mixture of methamphetamine and cocaine while being restrained. The coroner said the stun gun could not be ruled out as a cause of death and indicated a relationship between the Taser and Alvarado's heart attack.

16. Johnney Lozoya, age unknown, Gardena, Calif., July 19, 2002
Lozoya was seen running on the roof of a convalescent home. A few minutes later, police received reports that he was jumping on a parked car. Officers found Lozoya unconscious in the street and he was taken to a hospital, where he awoke and became combative. An officer shocked him. Several minutes later he died. An autopsy report shows Lozoya died of hypoxic encephalopathy, cardiac arrest and cocaine intoxication. But the medical examiner reported, "one cannot exclude the Taser causing the above damage to the tissues, specifically, the heart."

34. James Borden, 47, Monroe County, Ind., Nov. 6, 2003
On the eve of his father's funeral, Borden was arrested on a minor violation. Although officers were supposed to transport him to a hospital, he was taken to jail instead. Upon arrival at the jail, Borden did not follow commands of jailers. He was first shot with a Taser for initially refusing to pull up his pants. A jailer shocked him repeatedly until he collapsed and died. The autopsy report lists cause of death as a heart attack due to an enlarged heart, pharmacologic intoxication and electrical shocks from Taser. The jailer who shocked Borden has been charged with two counts of felony battery, including battery while armed with a deadly weapon.

42. William Lomax, 26, Las Vegas, Nev., Feb. 21, 2004
Lomax died after being shocked multiple times during a struggle with police and private security at a public housing complex. A jury at a coroner's inquest ruled that the Taser contributed his death. The Clark County Coroner says the death raises questions about the way Tasers are used. Lomax was high on PCP, a stimulant known for its ability to spark aggression. The coroner said multiple Taser bursts prevented Lomax from being able to breathe and ultimately contributed to a cardiac arrest. Doctors could not say if Lomax would have died if the Taser had not been used.

59. Kris Lieberman, 32, Bushkill Twp., Penn., June 24, 2004
Lieberman was found naked in a cornfield, crawling around and talking to himself. Officers said Lieberman lunged at them when they attempted to talk to him. They shocked him with a stun gun three times until he lost consciousness. Officers tried to revive him but he was pronounced dead a short time later. A medical examiner reported that Lieberman had high levels of cocaine in his system. The medical examiner also said the exertion of Lieberman’s fight with police – including shocks from a Taser and restraint – contributed to his death.

64. Milton Salazar, 29, Mesa, July 23, 2004
Hours after Salazar was released from the state prison on July 21, police said he reportedly threw rocks at motorists on Dobson Road then entered a convenience store and threw candy bars at the clerk. When an officer tried to arrest him, Salazar lay on the floor with his hands underneath his body and refused to obey commands. Officers shocked Salazar multiple times and when they rolled him over, he immediately turned white. Salazar was taken to Banner Desert Medical Center, where he died two days later. Police say chemical tests showed he had cocaine in his system. The medical examiner found that Salazar died of complications from excited delirium due to cocaine intoxication. The autopsy report said the shocks from Taser and the stress of his struggle with police contributed to Salazar's death.

70. William Teasley, 31, Anderson, S.C., Aug 16, 2004
Teasley was arrested for disorderly conduct. Deputies say he became violent while they tried to book him into jail. During a struggle, deputies shocked Teasley with a Taser. He stopped breathing. The coroner said Taser contributed directly to Teasley's death, saying it was the proverbial last straw. The coroner said his heart, spleen and liver were enlarged, he had hardened arteries and an obstructed airway. "The added stress of Taser shock with its electrical current was proximal to the cardiac arrhythmia and must be considered contributory," the autopsy report states. The coroner says officials with Taser International asked his office to reverse its ruling and leave the Taser out of the autopsy report.

Did you notice the last sentence in the last incident listed?

Looking at the first 100 provides a more representative sample, with some of the more questionable incidents listed above.

At any rate, I think this shows that tasering is not a safe procedure under many circumstances. Of course one would have to actually read most of the article to understand this fact.

Edited by anglagard, : bold notorious last sentence to attract attention

Edited by anglagard, : clarity


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-21-2006 10:25 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3410 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 yet responded

    
nator
Member (Idle past 2233 days)
Posts: 12961
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 80 of 142 (365337)
11-22-2006 8:58 AM


more interesting things about the officer emerging
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/11/19/10734/370

In May 1990, he was accused of using his nightstick to choke someone who was hanging out on a Saturday in front of a UCLA fraternity. Kente S. Scott alleged that Duren confronted him while he was walking on the street outside the Theta Xi fraternity house.

Scott sued the university, and according to court records, UCLA officials moved to have Duren dismissed from the police force. But after an independent administrative hearing, officials overturned the dismissal, suspending him for 90 days.
...
In October 2003, Duren shot and wounded a homeless man he encountered in Kerckhoff Hall. Duren chased the man into a bathroom, where they struggled and he fired two shots.

According to one court complaint presented in the trial, Duren allegedly woke a student sleeping in the study hall in Kerckhoff in August 1993, escorted him outside, slammed him against a wall, and handcuffed and arrested him.

The complaint also stated that on the way to the police station, Duren told the student, "For a while there I thought I was going to have to 'Rodney King' you."


    
Hyroglyphx
Member (Idle past 81 days)
Posts: 5512
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 81 of 142 (365481)
11-22-2006 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Jaderis
11-20-2006 6:09 AM


Re: Reviewing the video
I doubt that the kid in question was waving a gun at the officers.

Yes, that's very doubtful that he was waiving a gun, otherwise, they would have shot him with a firearm.

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.

But this information only minimizes the act. Its a detractor. If sleeping a park is not allowed, then LE officers can ask that person to leave. If that person refuses to leave and escalates the situation, is LE personnel supposed to just forget about it because, technically, all he was doing was just catching some Z's? Again, the not having an id card in his possession is what precipitated the event. He, no doubt, was charged with "failure to present library card." His charge likely read, "Obstruction" or "Resisting Arrest."

The more important question is why is passive non-compliance equated with resistance?

If I came into your house and just sat on your couch, you'd probably be pretty freaked out and would either attack me or ask me to leave. But suppose I wasn't violent. Suppose I just sat there. All I did was refuse to leave. Am I not still resisting? It is unlawful for me to be in your house without your expressed consent. And if the police came and asked me to leave, but I refused, I would still be resisting arrest. For the sake of officer safety, I wouldn't hesitate to agree that it is the best form of resistance to deal with-- but its resistance, nonetheless.

He was handcuffed. He had no means of escape. Why was it so important for him to "get up?"

Arrest means to take into custody. The arrestee doesn't get to make the rules and leave when he's good and ready.

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?

A power play? No, they were trying to take him in for booking.

The order to "get up" and his non-compliance just seems to give the police more reason to tase him again.

That seems to be his problem, now doesn't it? At any given time he could have taken the threats seriously. You shouldn't think of an officers request as veiled threats.

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?

The man was causing a disturbance. The law on this matter is very clear. Did you know that when an officer is behind you, once they deploy their code lights, you are required to comply with their requests. If they say, "Stay in your vehicle, please," then you stay in your vehicle. If they say, "Stand up, please," then you are expected to stand up. These are reasonable and lawful requests in order to affect the arrest. If they say, "Take your pants off so I can see your genitalia," then you'd certainly have a case, otherwise, asking someone to get up after they've been arrested is a reasonable request.

Where is the real crime here?

There's any number of crimes they could tack on.

Obstruction, resisting arrest, failure to obey a peace officer, etc.. His crime was a misdemeanor.


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 64 by Jaderis, posted 11-20-2006 6:09 AM Jaderis has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Silent H, posted 11-23-2006 6:37 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3410 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 yet responded

    
mick
Member (Idle past 2576 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 83 of 142 (366559)
11-28-2006 4:44 PM


"fuck the police"
You know, I've watched the video clip a few times and one of the main things that upsets me is that the surrounding students, while clearly disapproving of the cops' behaviour, do absolutely nothing to help the victim. Absolutely nothing at all!

If I was in the position of the onlookers, I find it hard to imagine I would do nothing at all. I think it would be appropriate to perform a citizen's arrest on the cops, and to give some first aid to the student. When I put myself in the place of the onlookers, I would like to think I would try to help the tasered guy by giving one or more of the cops a good uppercut to the head. The fact that the students surrounding this incident are unable to do a single thing to help him other than yelling "stop that" is quite depressing.

This all indicates to me a rather scary attititude - "we should all respect cops" - has permeated the society even to those who should be most against it.

Very sad. This guy was physically attacked for no reason, and his fellow student stood around in a circle and did absolutely nothing to help him.

Mick


Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by alacrity fitzhugh, posted 11-28-2006 6:20 PM mick has not yet responded
 Message 85 by crashfrog, posted 11-28-2006 6:26 PM mick has responded
 Message 134 by nator, posted 12-01-2006 5:04 PM mick has not yet responded

  
alacrity fitzhugh
Member (Idle past 1879 days)
Posts: 194
Joined: 02-10-2004


Message 84 of 142 (366577)
11-28-2006 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by mick
11-28-2006 4:44 PM


so police think They have the authority to kill a minority
mick writes:

Very sad. This guy was physically attacked for no reason, and his fellow student stood around in a circle and did absolutely nothing to help him

I would agree except for one thing, cops in the US, even rent-a-cops, are not only armed with tasers but guns. And with rentals you never know what will happen.


Look to this day, For yesterday is already a dream. And tomorrow only a vision. But today We lived, makes every Yesterday a dream of Happiness and every tomorrow A vision of hope. Look well there to This day.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by mick, posted 11-28-2006 4:44 PM mick has not yet responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 142 (366579)
11-28-2006 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by mick
11-28-2006 4:44 PM


Re: "fuck the police"
You know, I've watched the video clip a few times and one of the main things that upsets me is that the surrounding students, while clearly disapproving of the cops' behaviour, do absolutely nothing to help the victim. Absolutely nothing at all!

What should they have done? Assault a bunch of cops? Get shot?

When I put myself in the place of the onlookers, I would like to think I would try to help the tasered guy by giving one or more of the cops a good uppercut to the head.

You don't think that would have resulted in the escalation of force? All the way up to "deadly"? You're asking quite a bit to demand that a crowd of people die for a complete stranger.

This guy was physically attacked for no reason, and his fellow student stood around in a circle and did absolutely nothing to help him.

A bunch of them taped it; I'd say that was the best thing they could have done. Nonescalatory, nobody else gets hurt, the cops aren't egged on to hurt the guy any worse, or hurt anybody else. And then the proceedures of civil law and public outrage drop headlong on these cops, instead of the story being muddled by a riot.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by mick, posted 11-28-2006 4:44 PM mick has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Chiroptera, posted 11-28-2006 7:03 PM crashfrog has responded
 Message 87 by mick, posted 11-28-2006 7:36 PM crashfrog has responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6397
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 86 of 142 (366594)
11-28-2006 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by crashfrog
11-28-2006 6:26 PM


Re: "fuck the police"
quote:
And then the proceedures of civil law and public outrage drop headlong on these cops, instead of the story being muddled by a riot.

Actually, I would have preferred the ending where the people rise up and storm the Bastille, but I'm a romantic.


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 85 by crashfrog, posted 11-28-2006 6:26 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by crashfrog, posted 11-28-2006 8:01 PM Chiroptera has responded

  
mick
Member (Idle past 2576 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 87 of 142 (366604)
11-28-2006 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by crashfrog
11-28-2006 6:26 PM


Re: "fuck the police"
crashfrog,

I think you are being a bit silly here.

crashfrog writes:

What should they have done? Assault a bunch of cops? Get shot?

I was expecting to be criticised for my attitude that cops are working against the interests of normal students. I DID NOT expect to get criticised for thinking that the US democracy has degraded to such an extent that standing up to cops was tantamount to suicide. If you genuinely think that the twenty to thirty students surrounding this incident would have been shot and killed by the cops, then american democracy is in a FAR WORSE a state than I have interpreted it. Sure, if the students are in danger of being murdered for standing up for a brown-skinned person, then you are quite right, they should be saving up their efforts for more coordinated activity. But I doubt very strongly that the cops in this case were going to shoot thirty white students to death. I am not aware of any incident where college cops have shot to death thirty white students. But maybe you are right, and US citizens are genuinely living in some crazy Orwellian fantasy of instant obliteration if they stand up to the police????

crashfrog writes:

You don't think that would have resulted in the escalation of force? All the way up to "deadly"? You're asking quite a bit to demand that a crowd of people die for a complete stranger.

Again, you have the weird idea that the cops are going to kill any student who stands against them. If you are serious, I hope you are talking to your congressman about this problem. Because it would be a very serious problem, if it were true.

crashfrog writes:

A bunch of them taped it; I'd say that was the best thing they could have done.

Well, in your fantasy world in which anybody standing up against the tyrannical UCLA security guards is going to die a violent death, that is probably the best that they can do. Personally, I think that the cops are servants of the people, and that a couple of well-placed uppercuts would be sufficient in calming the situation and showing the cops exactly who they are supposed to be working for.

I'm really baffled by your post. Your comments on biological matters seem quite sensible, but when you talk about student politics you make it sound like major massacres of students are right round the corner!

Mick


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by crashfrog, posted 11-28-2006 6:26 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Taz, posted 11-28-2006 7:41 PM mick has not yet responded
 Message 89 by Chiroptera, posted 11-28-2006 7:42 PM mick has not yet responded
 Message 91 by crashfrog, posted 11-28-2006 8:20 PM mick has not yet responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 882 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 88 of 142 (366606)
11-28-2006 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by mick
11-28-2006 7:36 PM


Re: "fuck the police"
I'd have to go with crashfrog on this. The reason there is such an outcry about this is because many people, including myself, are convinced that excessive force was used against a non-violent person. If the surrounding students were to step up and bash the cops on the head, it would have turned into an excuse for the cops to carry out more excessive force without being criticized. It may surprise you to know, but they are authorized to use lethal force if they felt threatened, and a bunch of students jumping on top of these cops would have been perceived as very threatening.

There is a time and place for everything, including non-passive protest. This ain't one of those times.


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 87 by mick, posted 11-28-2006 7:36 PM mick has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6397
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 89 of 142 (366607)
11-28-2006 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by mick
11-28-2006 7:36 PM


Re: "fuck the police"
quote:
...then american democracy is in a FAR WORSE a state than I have interpreted it.

Yeah, well, sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but American democracy is probably in worse shape than you could imagine even with this incident. Americans have always traditionally been pretty nervous about democracy, and sometimes are outright afraid of the concept.

I guarantee, if the students had done something more physical, and if violence did escalate, then public opinion would overwhelmingly have been on the side of the police.

Americans don't even like violent protest. Seattle in 1999 was pretty much a very unusual event, and no one even remembers it, much less considers the people heroes. (The Civil Rights demonstrations in the 60s and 70s are safely in the realm of mythology now, so it is okay to approve of those.)


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 87 by mick, posted 11-28-2006 7:36 PM mick has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 142 (366615)
11-28-2006 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Chiroptera
11-28-2006 7:03 PM


Re: "fuck the police"
Actually, I would have preferred the ending where the people rise up and storm the Bastille, but I'm a romantic.

Yeah. I used to be chaotic good, too, but now I'm strictly lawful neutral.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Chiroptera, posted 11-28-2006 7:03 PM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by mick, posted 11-28-2006 8:21 PM crashfrog has not yet responded
 Message 93 by Chiroptera, posted 11-28-2006 8:26 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
45
6
78910Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017