UCLA Student tazed because he did not leave the library when asked to

[NSX-GUY]

Passive resistance? What's that? Talking? Smiling? Asking questions?

It's a bunch of bull, in my eyes. The idea of tasering someone that is handcuffed and not trying to beat you up is silly, much less tasering them MULTIPLE times. If you can't handle a guy that's handcuffed, you shouldn't be on the force. If three or four guys can't handle a handcuffed 130 lb guy, they need to be fired right now for physical incompetence.

As far as I can tell, no consideration was given the fact that the guy was handcuffed, not resisting, was stating he had a medical condition, and was in obvious pain after the first taser.

Not surprised, given your age, it's a "bunch of bull" in your eyes.

"Passive resistance" - How about this (from the recap in post 117) "Conversely, the student was indeed in violation of the ID policy, became unnecessarily confrontational with both security and UCLAPD, actively (not passively) resisted by dropping his weight and dragging his feet when being escorted out" Now you can dispute the recap if you like as I haven't read the report but if the recap is correct then that *sounds* like "passive resistance" to *me*...... :smile:

You've never seen nor heard of someone STILL struggling, sometimes violently and out of control while in pain and in some sort of restraint ??? C'mon now - I *know* you have !!! :biggrin:

Perhaps YOU should be fired from YOUR job because of "mental incompetence" ??? :smile:

 

[JonBoy]

Not surprised, given your age, it's a "bunch of bull" in your eyes.

Ah, the opening salvo is an insult. Good start to a logical, impersonal, polite, and credible argument.

"Passive resistance" - How about this (from the recap in post 117) "Conversely, the student was indeed in violation of the ID policy, became unnecessarily confrontational with both security and UCLAPD, actively (not passively) resisted by dropping his weight and dragging his feet when being escorted out" Now you can dispute the recap if you like as I haven't read the report but if the recap is correct then that *sounds* like "passive resistance" to *me*...... :smile:

For starters, you completely missed my point. I was taking issue with the policy of tasering for passive resistance, not taking issue over whether or not the student restricted his actions to "passive" or "active" resistance.

Furthermore, I was asking for clarification of what "passive resistance" is. As I said, is it talking? smiling? yelling? Or, as you mentioned, refusing to walk? If so, the idea of tasering someone for such things is (again) baloney, ESPECIALLY if the person is handcuffed and unable to (effectively) do anything physically dangerous or retaliatory.

You've never seen nor heard of someone STILL struggling, sometimes violently and out of control while in pain and in some sort of restraint ??? C'mon now - I *know* you have !!! :biggrin:

And tasering them is supposed to somehow stop that? By causing more pain? Right. The fact that they're restrained means that they should be sufficiently incapacitated that a COMPETENT police officer should be able to handle that person (much less three of them).

Perhaps YOU should be fired from YOUR job because of "mental incompetence" ??? :smile:

Because we don't agree on something and you're positive you're right?

You're a piece of work, that's for sure.

 

[NSX-GUY]

Ah, the opening salvo is an insult. Good start to a logical, impersonal, polite, and credible argument.



For starters, you completely missed my point. I was taking issue with the policy of tasering for passive resistance, not taking issue over whether or not the student restricted his actions to "passive" or "active" resistance.

Furthermore, I was asking for clarification of what "passive resistance" is. As I said, is it talking? smiling? yelling? Or, as you mentioned, refusing to walk? If so, the idea of tasering someone for such things is (again) baloney, ESPECIALLY if the person is handcuffed and unable to (effectively) do anything physically dangerous or retaliatory.



And tasering them is supposed to somehow stop that? By causing more pain? Right. The fact that they're restrained means that they should be sufficiently incapacitated that a COMPETENT police officer should be able to handle that person (much less three of them).



Because we don't agree on something and you're positive you're right?

You're a piece of work, that's for sure.

For starters, the opening salvo was not an insult, just an observation. But I guess the insult is in the eye of the beholder, no ? :biggrin: And, FWIW, IN GENERAL, the younger one is the more they tend to believe "authority" figures are wrong and *they* are right. (You'll just have to trust me on this one )

Funny but the older I got the smarter *my* parents got. Now how do you suppose THAT happened ??? :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:

Goes to how YOUR post is perceived as well, no ? *I* read your "Passive resistance? What's that? Talking? Smiling?" as being (implicitly :biggrin: ) sarcastic. So who's kidding who ? You didn't sound like you were "asking". You sounded like you were being sarcastic. Good start to *your* logical(?), impersonal, polite(?), and credible(?) argument. :tongue:

Was I incorrect ? Somehow I doubt it (but if I *was* then I will apologize - promise). So you start with sarcasm and what do you expect in response ?

And kindly point out where you told us it was the policy you were criticizing as much as, or instead of, the officers' handling of the event and I will gladly apologize (again ?). After telling us the officer(s) should be fired, it sure *sounded* like you were criticizing the officer(s) handling of the incident to me. :smile:

As for "The Miranda warning cops give you when they're arresting you states that "anything you SAY can and will be used against you in a court of law." Isn't that an implicit acknowledgement that you can talk, even yell, when being arrested?" the answer is "No", that is NOT "implicit acknowledgement that you can talk". Your logic is flawed. Sorry. :wink:

The fact they can use anything you say in a court of law is NOT "implicit acknowledgement that you can talk", never mind that ANY lawyer in the land would advise you to keep your mouth SHUT (with the sole possible exception being to tell them of any condition you might have or anybody else is any danger/trouble, etc., and, FWIW, I don't see (either) how being bi-polar has anything to do with it)

As observed earlier, when arrested you follow the orders of the arresting officer(s) and deal with their behavior after the fact. Especially if you have *plenty* of witnesses.

"And tasering them is supposed to somehow stop that? By causing more pain?" Ummmm, yes ! The tasering IS supposed to stop that behavior and, by the sound of it, did exactly that.

And since you appear to be an expert in the competency of police officer behavior and policies, and even though you weren't there, suggest they were incompetent and should be fired, that makes *me* as much an authority on *your* thought processes to wonder whether *you* should be fired (assuming you need to actually think on the job of course )

BTW, ever get kicked in the nuts ? :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:

Thanks for the compliment BTW . I *am* a "piece of work". If it's any consolation to you I think *you* are as well. :wink:

YOU gave YOUR opinion. *I* gave MINE.

So just because we don't agree you're positive *you're* right ??? :smile:

Later

 

[mickeylex]

...UCLAPD used mild force (grabbed the suspect's arm) when it appeared none was necessary or before the officer had even spoken to the student to assess the situation on his own;

The student again displayed poor judgment in resisting once more when being escorted out;

After at least 16 requests to stop resisting or be Tased the student continued to resist;

The student was Tased, was asked at least another eight-plus times to comply, was Tased again, was asked more times to comply, and was Tased a third time;

Two more officers arrived on the scene and the student was still resisting.

Thereafter the student admitted to officers he intentionally resisted and abused his civil liberty to "passively resist" based on "principle."

I don't know why, but for some reason it's my nature to want to defend those that need defending. However, in this particular case, I'm compelled to say "the kid got what he deserved" - which is contrary to my regular response to something like this.

I think I feel this way because.....He was asked to stop resisting...at least 27 times - or should I say - he never stopped resisting. He was told what it would take to make his ordeal stop and he voluntarily resisted.

I agree w/ Cairo. If an officer asks you to stop resisting...DO IT. Resisting will only make the current situation worse. Once you start resisting, the reason the officer stops you becomes secondary. Your resistance is now the issue the officer is compelled to and will stop your resistance.

 

[JonBoy]

For starters, the opening salvo was not an insult, just an observation. But I guess the insult is in the eye of the beholder, no ? :biggrin: And, FWIW, IN GENERAL, the younger one is the more they tend to believe "authority" figures are wrong and *they* are right. (You'll just have to trust me on this one )

I'm 27, haven't ever been arrested, have never been anything but polite and courteous to an officer, and have no intention of changing that. Pulling the "age" card is no different than the "race" card - it's bull and it's a weak argument.

"I'm older than you, so I'm right"

I don't think they're wrong because they're in authority, I think they're wrong because they used poor judgement and excessive force. Given the HISTORY of the officer that laid a hand on the guy and tasered him, I'd say that's indisputable.

Funny but the older I got the smarter *my* parents got. Now how do you suppose THAT happened ??? :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:

My parents were always smart and I've always respected them for it. I wasn't a "teen rebel" and never have been. I'm my own guy but I've never felt the need to completely ignore my parents (or anyone else) purely for the sake of saying "I'm doing what I want, regardless". So, you're way off base.

Goes to how YOUR post is perceived as well, no ? *I* read your "Passive resistance? What's that? Talking? Smiling?" as being (implicitly :biggrin: ) sarcastic. So who's kidding who ? You didn't sound like you were "asking". You sounded like you were being sarcastic. Good start to *your* logical(?), impersonal, polite(?), and credible(?) argument. :tongue:

You made the assumption - that's your problem, not mine, and you definitely have a chip on your shoulder here. Are you (by chance) a police officer?

Was I incorrect ? Somehow I doubt it (but if I *was* then I will apologize - promise). So you start with sarcasm and what do you expect in response ?

Yes, you were incorrect. What you doubt is of no interest to me. I clarified myself (to remove doubt) and this is the stuff you come back with.

"I'm older, so I doubt I'm wrong." Right.

And kindly point out where you told us it was the policy you were criticizing as much as, or instead of, the officers' handling of the event and I will gladly apologize (again ?). After telling us the officer(s) should be fired, it sure *sounded* like you were criticizing the officer(s) handling of the incident to me. :smile:

I told you in my second post to clarify my stance, since you so obviously took it way differently than I intended.

Regarding firing the officers, I said (and I quote) "...If you can't handle a guy that's handcuffed, you shouldn't be on the force. If three or four guys can't handle a handcuffed 130 lb guy, they need to be fired right now for physical incompetence."

The firing I mentioned was based on them being weak and physically incompetent, NOT on their specific handling of the student. It was not specifically a reflection of their judgement, merely them being not strong enough to handle a 130 lb detainee.

As for "The Miranda warning cops give you when they're arresting you states that "anything you SAY can and will be used against you in a court of law." Isn't that an implicit acknowledgement that you can talk, even yell, when being arrested?" the answer is "No", that is NOT "implicit acknowledgement that you can talk". Your logic is flawed. Sorry. :wink:

You said it so that makes it? Right. Last I heard, I was allowed to talk to police, even when under arrest, ESPECIALLY if I have a medical condition (as this kid did/does).

The fact they can use anything you say in a court of law is NOT "implicit acknowledgement that you can talk", never mind that ANY lawyer in the land would advise you to keep your mouth SHUT (with the sole possible exception being to tell them of any condition you might have or anybody else is any danger/trouble, etc., and, FWIW, I don't see (either) how being bi-polar has anything to do with it)

What a lawyer would advise is irrelevant to my argument (and yours). It's not what's being put in question.

As observed earlier, when arrested you follow the orders of the arresting officer(s) and deal with their behavior after the fact. Especially if you have *plenty* of witnesses.

That does not preclude you from notifying them of a physical or medical condition, nor does it preclude you from claiming your rights. They can ignore you but you have a right to notify them if they are impinging on your rights.

"And tasering them is supposed to somehow stop that? By causing more pain?" Ummmm, yes ! The tasering IS supposed to stop that behavior and, by the sound of it, did exactly that.

Yeah, it really stopped him. It only took five tries. Are you even watching the videos? You're making yourself an expert and you've already admitted you haven't even read the final investigative report!

And since you appear to be an expert in the competency of police officer behavior and policies, and even though you weren't there, suggest they were incompetent and should be fired, that makes *me* as much an authority on *your* thought processes to wonder whether *you* should be fired (assuming you need to actually think on the job of course )

Fair enough, but since you dismiss my arguments so easily, you give me the same right to dismiss yours. Circular argument, champ.

And again, you've misquoted and taken out of context my "firing" comment (as noted above).

Furthermore, why the "work" comments. You're attacking for (what I can see) no reason. Disagree, but why make a personal attack? It's pointless, besides the point, and only makes you look childish...

BTW, ever get kicked in the nuts ? :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:

Yup. And punched. And hit with a hockey puck. And basketball. If someone did it to me again, it wouldn't make me walk, stand up, or not groan, yell, or moan. In fact, I wouldn't be able to walk...just like this kid.

Thanks for the compliment BTW . I *am* a "piece of work". If it's any consolation to you I think *you* are as well. :wink:

Yay.

So just because we don't agree you're positive *you're* right ??? :smile:

Later

Ah, but I've never claimed I was right. I only stated my opinion. You're the one that's come up with the "I'm older so I'm right" and "I haven't read anything but I'm still right" arguments.

Really, it's laughable....from my perspective.

 

[H-carWizKid]

I don't know why, but for some reason it's my nature to want to defend those that need defending. In this particular case, I'm compelled to say "the kid got what he deserved" - which is contrary to my regular response to something like this.

I think I feel this way because.....He was asked to stop resisting....and he resisted at least 27 times. He was told what it would take to make his ordeal stop and he voluntarily resisted.

I agree w/ Cairo. If an officer asks you to stop resisting...DO IT. Resisting will only make the current situation worse. Once you start resisting, the reason the officer stops you becomes secondary. Your resistance is now the issue the officer is compelled to and will stop your resistance.

Nobody "got what they deserved" here- what we are seeing is a series where a kid made stupid kid decisions, and a professional made unprofessional choices.

the question becomes, which is the greater failure? The stupid kid, or the professionals whose actions actually escalated the situation?

I agree 100%- it is a bad idea to resist, and given the documentation of the encounter, it was indeed the students lack of compliance that led to the escalation which included the initial decision to bring officers of the UCLAPD to the scene, and his attitude after being approached by the UCLAPD officers was clearly NOT compliant to the easy resolution of the incident.

I would probably do it differently, but then I am older and wiser, as are you, and probably most other folks on the board.

We still have 2 negligent parties though-

You have to ask yourself questions from both perspectives to figure out who is ultimately more negligent. By my paradigm, I put the majority of fault on the unprofessional behavior of the officers, although I certainly wouldn't dispute that the kid should have just left when approached by the CSO.

The record shows that the student was leaving when the UCLAPD officers arrived on the scene. Officer 1 interceeded with the students attempt to leave, thus creating a confrontation that escalated.

At this point, the officer has to take on the mantle of responsibility for his choices as well.

Ask yourself- would the kid have been "resisting" if officer 1 had just let him depart the library on his own? Would the officer have had to ask him 27 times to stop resisting if there hadn't been a confrontation in the first place?

The kid was impetuous, he was an a$$hole to the CSO, and should have just complied with the request to leave. The CSO did dilligence by calling the campus police, and probably gave the dispatch a bit of the lowdown on the issue they (the CSO) were dealing with. Those facts accepted, the deterent worked- The kid WAS LEAVING the library. When the officer arrived on scene why didn't he just follow the kid outside making sure he left the premesis?

That is where the officers decisions as a professional come into question.

the student is a student, his responsibilities are to pay tuition, go to class, use the facilities, and not violate the rules of the institution.
He broke the last one when he refused to show his Bruin card- broke a rule, not a law mind you, a rule.

The officers mandate is to protect, and serve the institutional facilities, and the student population.
Who or what was protected? Who or what was served?

This whole affair is a black eye to the institution, so in that respect it is damaged. The student was harmed. Non lethal or not, the taser causes harm-it hurts, even if only for a little while.

Now I ask- would any of this be the case if the officer had just watched the student go out the door?

Was the right decision made by any party?

Who has the greater obligation to make the right decisions?

With great power comes what?

Great responsibility...

Was it responsible to initiate a confrontation in an area you are supposedly trying to secure?

Based on the independant investigation- his actions actually served to keep the student IN the library.

Think about it. I am going back to my popcorn now.


Philip

 

[JonBoy]

Well said, Philip.

Personally, since the officer is a professional, I believe the standard is higher for him.

The kid is/was dumb. The officer was comparitively more dumb (given his training and job). Ergo, the officer ultimately takes the blame.

Ultimately, the kid is going to get some money and the officer will just join another police force.

 

[NSXGMS]

Furthermore, I was asking for clarification of what "passive resistance" is. As I said, is it talking? smiling? yelling? Or, as you mentioned, refusing to walk? If so, the idea of tasering someone for such things is (again) baloney, ESPECIALLY if the person is handcuffed and unable to (effectively) do anything physically dangerous or retaliatory.

Passive resistance is not walking when the officer says walk. You can talk, smile and yell all you want as long as you go where the officer tells you to when he tells you to do it.

Well said, Philip.

Personally, since the officer is a professional, I believe the standard is higher for him.

The kid is/was dumb. The officer was comparitively more dumb (given his training and job). Ergo, the officer ultimately takes the blame.

Ultimately, the kid is going to get some money and the officer will just join another police force.

I think that is a very accurate point of view.

 

[PhiAlpha44]

Well said, Philip.

Personally, since the officer is a professional, I believe the standard is higher for him.

The kid is/was dumb. The officer was comparitively more dumb (given his training and job). Ergo, the officer ultimately takes the blame.

Ultimately, the kid is going to get some money and the officer will just join another police force.

This is the kind of thinking that handicaps our police officers. They are stuck in a world of damned if you do, and damned if you don't. For someone like you the officers will take the blame no matter what. If they taze him to get control, they've over stepped their boundaries. If it takes 4 officers to restrain him, they're using too much force for just 1 kid.... and if that kid goes berserk and hurts other students in the computer lab, well then the cops should have stepped up and did something to stop it. It's just a thankless job.

 

[H-carWizKid]

This is the kind of thinking that handicaps our police officers. They are stuck in a world of damned if you do, and damned if you don't. For someone like you the officers will take the blame no matter what. If they taze him to get control, they've over stepped their boundaries. If it takes 4 officers to restrain him, they're using too much force for just 1 kid.... and if that kid goes berserk and hurts other students in the computer lab, well then the cops should have stepped up and did something to stop it. It's just a thankless job.

Lumping all police into an "unthanked" grouping is just as obtuse as lumping all officers into an "unprofessional" grouping.

There are LOTS of excellent police officers out there. People who understand how to deal with the elements of society that we would never want to see. I respect them, and I appreciate their work. Conversely there are officers who do not understand the responsibility of their position, and those officers need to be doing something else.

Professional responsibility is not "damned if you do, damned if you don't" it is taking your training, and your responsibilities as seriously as your job mandates. Sometimes that means prioritizing your actions to most effectively accomplish the goal.

In this case they want this kid out of the library- why not let him leave? Why force a confrontation?

Nobody forces officers to take their job- and if they are unable, or unwilling to accept their professional responsibilities as part of their employment then that officer is a liability, and should be removed from service.

Philip

 

[PhiAlpha44]

There are LOTS of excellent police officers out there. People who understand how to deal with the elements of society that we would never want to see. I respect them, and I appreciate their work. Conversely there are officers who do not understand the responsibility of their position, and those officers need to be doing something else.

Professional responsibility is not "damned if you do, damned if you don't" it is taking your training, and your responsibilities as seriously as your job mandates. Sometimes that means prioritizing your actions to most effectively accomplish the goal.

In this case they want this kid out of the library- why not let him leave? Why force a confrontation?
Philip

See Philip, what you don't understand is they WERE following their training. I see stuff like that all the time. It's not a unique situation. But because it was in front of a bunch of college kids, who have probably never seen anything like this unfold in front of their eyes, they all freaked out.
Police are trained to use the "force continuum". It starts with
1. Physical Presence. - Just having an officer in plain sight is enough to deter most people from doing things they shouldn't.

2.verbal commands. - If someone is still acting the fool even with an officer in plain sight, the cop will give a verbal command. "sir we heard you've been bothering the other students, would you please leave"? The student disobeys this and starts getting mouthy.

3.use of hands. They try to escort the kid out of the computer lab. The kid starts making an a$$ of himself, ignoring all verbal commands and turning himself into dead weight and telling the police to get their hands off him.

4.at this point they have tried 3 different methods to remove the kid from the lab. Just being there, asking him to leave, and a hands on escort. Nothing has worked. So now we're onto non deadly weapons.
a. Tazers
b. Chemical agents (pepper spray)
c. Asp baton or other impact weapon
Trust me when I tell you I hope everyone gets tazed before they get shot in the face with pepper spray. You might as well pour gasoline on your face and light it. Tazers zap you and it's over. The kid got the best of the 3 options here, and the officers couldn't really use the pepper spray anyway because they were indoors and close quarters with other people. They would have choked themselves and every kid in the lab. Spraying the kid with pepper spray with all those bystanders around would have been unprofessional, smacking him with a baton when they had a tazer available would have been unprofessional. They did exactly what they should have done.

And just for FYI after this it goes: The canine if available, less-than-lethal projectiles ie.. beanbags, rubber bullets. And finally Deadly force.

Police are always trained to respond to a threat with 1 level higher on the continuum as well. If somebody puts their hands on an officer, they respond with spray, or batons or tazers. If someone tried to hit an officer with a bat or a baton, and there are no dogs, rubber bullets and beanbags to be had and they shot the person, they would be within their rights to defend themselves.

Philip, I'm sorry man... you're just wrong here. Everyone has their opinions. Yours can be that they are unprofessional and need to go get a different job. But the reality is that those officers did EXACTLY what they were supposed to do. That kid left the lab without bruises, cuts or chemical burns, the only thing wounded was his pride. Next time maybe he'll just do whats asked of him the first 25 times.

Hopefully now that you know the facts, you'll change your opinion... but I won't hold my breath.

 

[JonBoy]

This is the kind of thinking that handicaps our police officers. They are stuck in a world of damned if you do, and damned if you don't. For someone like you the officers will take the blame no matter what. If they taze him to get control, they've over stepped their boundaries. If it takes 4 officers to restrain him, they're using too much force for just 1 kid.... and if that kid goes berserk and hurts other students in the computer lab, well then the cops should have stepped up and did something to stop it. It's just a thankless job.

I've got no problem with them using force. I've seen a clip where a police officer waits about two minutes for a woman that he's pulled over to get out her license and registration. She refuses, verbally abuses him, gets on the phone, threatens him, acuses him of harassment, etc, etc... He finally warns her (multiple times) to get out of the vehicle and she refuses, so he tasers her (multiple times, after more warnings).

I completely agreed with that officer's behaviour. His patience was admirable and the lady needed/deserved it (she was on a suspended license with no insurance, I believe).

It's not the violoence I dislike so much, it's the immediate and repeated application of it when no threat is apparent. The policy of the university to use a taser for passive resistance is as boneheaded as the officer in this situation.

They had three/four officers there - they could've picked him up and walked out, no problem. Two guys could've done it! No need to taser him multiple times.

And don't get me started about laying a hand on the guy when he's already leaving. You don't need to touch a person unless they are a threat.

It was poor judgement on the officer's part, period. Yes, later he was provoked but he initiated a trend of physical confrontation up front. He just got ticked off even more (it appears he was ticked off/on a power trip to start) and let it carry him away.

I won't disagree that they're often damned if they and damned if they don't. All I know is that if an independent investigation finds fault with a particular officer (with a history of violence), I'm bound to agree with them. That guy has a need to exert authority in a physical way and it clearly showed in this situation.

 

[JonBoy]

See Philip, what you don't understand is they WERE following their training. I see stuff like that all the time. It's not a unique situation. But because it was in front of a bunch of college kids, who have probably never seen anything like this unfold in front of their eyes, they all freaked out.
Police are trained to use the "force continuum". It starts with
1. Physical Presence. - Just having an officer in plain sight is enough to deter most people from doing things they shouldn't.

2.verbal commands. - If someone is still acting the fool even with an officer in plain sight, the cop will give a verbal command. "sir we heard you've been bothering the other students, would you please leave"? The student disobeys this and starts getting mouthy.

3.use of hands. They try to escort the kid out of the computer lab. The kid starts making an a$$ of himself, ignoring all verbal commands and turning himself into dead weight and telling the police to get their hands off him.

4.at this point they have tried 3 different methods to remove the kid from the lab. Just being there, asking him to leave, and a hands on escort. Nothing has worked. So now we're onto non deadly weapons.
a. Tazers
b. Chemical agents (pepper spray)
c. Asp baton or other impact weapon
Trust me when I tell you I hope everyone gets tazed before they get shot in the face with pepper spray. You might as well pour gasoline on your face and light it. Tazers zap you and it's over. The kid got the best of the 3 options here, and the officers couldn't really use the pepper spray anyway because they were indoors and close quarters with other people. They would have choked themselves and every kid in the lab. Spraying the kid with pepper spray with all those bystanders around would have been unprofessional, smacking him with a baton when they had a tazer available would have been unprofessional. They did exactly what they should have done.

And just for FYI after this it goes: The canine if available, less-than-lethal projectiles ie.. beanbags, rubber bullets. And finally Deadly force.

Police are always trained to respond to a threat with 1 level higher on the continuum as well. If somebody puts their hands on an officer, they respond with spray, or batons or tazers. If someone tried to hit an officer with a bat or a baton, and there are no dogs, rubber bullets and beanbags to be had and they shot the person, they would be within their rights to defend themselves.

Philip, I'm sorry man... you're just wrong here. Everyone has their opinions. Yours can be that they are unprofessional and need to go get a different job. But the reality is that those officers did EXACTLY what they were supposed to do. That kid left the lab without bruises, cuts or chemical burns, the only thing wounded was his pride. Next time maybe he'll just do whats asked of him the first 25 times.

Hopefully now that you know the facts, you'll change your opinion... but I won't hold my breath.

What you're forgetting is that video footage in the library (not the hand-held camera footage shown earlier) showed the kid WAS leaving to start with. That's where the mistake is in your situation.

Your assuming the kid was not leaving but the independent investigation showed that he was. The cop put a hand on him and it all started from that point. There was no verbal command (or multiple verbal commands) to stop or leave prior to touching him. The guy saw the kid, grabbed his arm, and then it spiraled out of control from there. So, the cop jumped straight to level 3 of your list, ignoring 1 and 2. That's "wrong", per your argument.

Also don't forget that the kid say "I'll leave! I'll leave" multiple times and they still kept tasering him. He was trying to comply and they wouldn't allow him to do so. That's another fault in their actions.

You're right about your comments and how they progress through levels of intimidation/authority/physical action. You're just wrong in your assumptions of the situation being discussed (and the facts of the independent investigation back up what I'm saying).

 

[H-carWizKid]

PhiAlpha- I am not here to change your mind, and you aren't going to change mine. My argument is that these officers made bad choices when approaching this situation. By posting the Force Contintuum you have only strengthened my position as their actions laid out in the report are contrary to the steps you provided.

http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/taserreport/

Merrick Bobb- the independant (impartial) investigator hired to conduct the probe is a very credentialed individual.

I understand that you are looking at this as a generic situation- but we have specifics here. I don't think you read the report. Particularly the bottom of page 16, and the top of page 17 where the UCLAPD officers effectively skipped steps 1 and 2 of your handy little situation guide, and escalated the situation.

If you are speaking in the generic- then any situation is different, and I can only speak to the one I am studying. Obviously the force continuum has a logic to it. I think if these officers had followed it, and allowed their presence to drive the kid out of the library (as WAS documented to be occuring per the library camera) then we aren't having a discussion.

But they didn't.

They interceeded with his departure, and then went to step 3 of the Force Continuum and lay hands on him. This is documented in the report.

If you read the report and still think the methodology of approaching this kid was appropriate, then I (respectfully) hope that you aren't in a position to make that kind of decision.

If you didn't read the report and are commenting based upon your blind belief that these guys were just doing the job correctly and things got out of hand, then you are skipping the critical analysis.

Just like these officers did.

Have a read on that report. It is really good critical analysis.

Also- the kid should have just left the library when asked by the CSO. the police should never have become involved.

the kid was stupid, and made stupid choices, there is no disputing that.

The kid doesn't have guidelines to this kind of situation- the officers did. They should have followed them. If they had, we aren't discussing, we aren't arguing- we don't have anything to talk about.

I have respect and appreciation for Police who do their jobs well.

These guys didn't.

Philip

 

[JeffShoots]

What an Fing WUSS...you hear that little bitch...Guy needs to GROW A PAIR :tongue: or just COOPERATE

I work in Law Enforcement Training NOW and at different Shows my Booth has been next to both Taser and the Wand Electrical stimulant.
People will wait in line to be Tased or hit with a Wand

It's the safest type of "cooperation" you can get. Using other force methods he could have a broken arm, nose, leg (still have my ASP that broke a guys femur and it's BENT)......

And YES I've been CNed, OCed, Peppered, Tasered, Hit with a Wand, ASP, PR-24, Simunitions (THAT HURTS), cuffed (Felony & Standard) and been in more physical "scuffles" than I can count (Back before Rodney King).

He's yelling "Patriot Act" $HIT..........10 years ago he just would have been BEAT DOWN and if resisted put in the HOSPITAL.

AND you Guys have your panties in a bunch over this :wink: technology let him NOT get hurt.

 

[JonBoy]

What an Fing WUSS...you hear that little bitch...Guy needs to GROW A PAIR :tongue: or just COOPERATE

I work in Law Enforcement Training NOW and at different Shows my Booth has been next to both Taser and the Wand Electrical stimulant.
People will wait in line to be Tased or hit with a Wand

It's the safest type of "cooperation" you can get. Using other force methods he could have a broken arm, nose, leg (still have my ASP that broke a guys femur and it's BENT)......

And YES I've been CNed, OCed, Peppered, Tasered, Hit with a Wand, ASP, PR-24, Simunitions (THAT HURTS), cuffed (Felony & Standard) and been in more physical "scuffles" than I can count (Back before Rodney King).

He's yelling "Patriot Act" $HIT..........10 years ago he just would have been BEAT DOWN and if resisted put in the HOSPITAL.

AND you Guys have your panties in a bunch over this :wink: technology let him NOT get hurt.

Did you read the entire thread or the investigative report? You're arguing things that are beside the point.

The issue most of us are making is with the officer getting physical up front and escalating the situation as opposed to just letting him walk out. The multiple tasers later on were just icing on the cake.

 

[JeffShoots]

Did you read the entire thread or the investigative report? You're arguing things that are beside the point.

The issue most of us are making is with the officer getting physical up front and escalating the situation as opposed to just letting him walk out. The multiple tasers later on were just icing on the cake.

No SORRY not reading 140+ posts and MY only point is it's COULD have been a lot worse and if he had any respect NONE of this would have happened.

I DID read the post that he didn't have some card and was in the wrong but didn't cooperate.

All he had to do was cooperate with the Officers and explain the situation but from the sound on the Vid he wanted a confrontation and he got one.

I know A LOT of Officers and they are just like you and me. "Do my shift and get a paycheck".

Not that we don't have some bad Officers but MOST don't go looking for a fight (Officers get hurt and feel pain too :smile: ).

So next time somebody with Authority asks you a few questions and you are in the wrong just make it right...........pretty easy :tongue:

This Guy odviously had some predetermined idea about Authority figures or maybe just having a Bad Day.

I've noticed that if you give attitude you will get it back

 

[titaniumdave]

Sounds to me like the kid was hot head prick, asked to get messed with and his request was fulfilled.

Why is it too much to ask to have a student cooperate? He knew he had to have ID to be there, why is that not the issue???? He violated the rules, when found out, he acted like a jerk. WTF? The kid was an A-hole.

What kind of excuse is "I am bi-polar?" I am crazy and off my meds so you need to treat me nice...that's a pile of shit! ADA violation, bit of a stretch but I am sure it will clog our court system.

Sounds like the reasonable settlement is the police saying, "Wow, sorry for tazering you", and the kid saying " I sure was a jerk, I will stay on my meds!"

As if we would ever have something reasonable come through the courts...:frown:

 

[JeffShoots]

Sounds like the reasonable settlement is the police saying, "Wow, sorry for tazering you", and the kid saying " I sure was a jerk, I will stay on my meds!"

As if we would ever have something reasonable come through the courts...:frown:

Yes............if ONLY people had that much respect for each other :redface: NONE of this crap would be an issue

It's a social issue....I won't mention Names but I've had people on this Forum threaten my life..............over stupid likes or dislikes of CAR PARTS CRAZY Keyboard Commandos just make me laugh :tongue: and use the "ignore" feature we have here.

And I KNOW if we met face to face they would be cool

 

[JonBoy]

Sounds like the reasonable settlement is the police saying, "Wow, sorry for tazering you", and the kid saying " I sure was a jerk, I will stay on my meds!"

As if we would ever have something reasonable come through the courts...:frown:

Yes and no. The police "started it", so I don't quite think a simple apology would work.

I think the kid should be allowed to grab their arm and taser them three times, during which they are allowed to yell and talk about the Patriot Act. They'd get a good sense of the other's embarrassment, pain, and perspective.

 

[titaniumdave]

The police "started it"

The police made the kid go to a library with out his required ID??? That's how it started...

 

[JeffShoots]

I think the kid should be allowed to grab their arm and taser them three times, during which they are allowed to yell and talk about the Patriot Act. They'd get a good sense of the other's embarrassment, pain, and perspective.

The "embarrassment" parts funny I would think the Kid should be embarrassed for being such an screaming baby A-Hole in public.

Just an FYI: I don't think your Officers are going to give a $hit about being Tased. If you carry a Taser on the Job you have a 2 day coarse of being Tased in a buddy/buddy class over and over. It's really not that big a deal just imagine all your muscles tensing up

And this kids SCREAMING about it. They were doing HIM a favor they could have just put him in a wrist lock (usually breaking something) or beat him with a stick.

I see people buy these things on TV that shock different parts of the body to work out "sitting" for weight loss :biggrin:
What a Fing WUSS....Fat people everywhere are doing it watching TV

 

[NSXGMS]

Yes and no. The police "started it", so I don't quite think a simple apology would work.

I think the kid should be allowed to grab their arm and taser them three times, during which they are allowed to yell and talk about the Patriot Act. They'd get a good sense of the other's embarrassment, pain, and perspective.

No, UCLAPD didn't start it. The student's bad attitude started it if you want to get technical. And for the record, the officer who did the Tasing has been Tased at least once. It's a requirement to legally carry the Taser.

And I do not feel bad for one second for the student. He had every opportunity in the world to avoid embarrassment and pain. Just because the officers handled the situation poorly does not give the student, or anyone, the right to resist a peace officer--ever. If you feel you are being wronged by the system the time to deal with it is after the incident and to do so formally.

It's similar to walking down a dark alley at night. You are looking for trouble. I have very little sympathy for you if you choose to do that. Sure, no one should ever get mugged and it would be an unfortunate incident but you can hardly be considered "innocent" if you take such chances and all bets are off if you do, whether it's right or wrong to be mugged. That's life. Both parties are in the wrong, to a differing degree.

The UCLA policy, posted for all to read, basically states that if you resist an officer in any way you can be Tased. Whether or not that was excessive in this case the student was taking a calculated risk by resisting. Just because he might not have been familiar with the Taser policy doesn't excuse him. Ignorance is not an excuse.

There are two bottom lines. First, the officers should have been more effective in their communication and technique upon encountering the student and basically provoking a student looking for trouble. Second, the student was absolutely out of line and admittedly abused his position to resist and failed to cooperate. If you choose to do that, all bets are off. There has never been a situation where resisting a peace officer has had a positive outcome.

The officers should have handled this situation the same way they might handle a suspect on PCP. Be calm, don't upset the suspect, use effective communication and do everything you can not to escalate the situation. Instead they decided to intimidate the student, use a little too much force and failed to persuade the student to cooperate or at least exhaust all options short of using force.

Also, the officers mistakenly believed the crowd was a threat and that didn't help things. Again, perhaps they need more training in this area. But the officers certainly did not do anything heinous and were simply operating under a policy which was too broad as far as the Taser was concerned.

There are a lot more corrupt things cops do and have been accused of doing. This is very minor. There should be some measure of discipline, retraining and that's about it. The student was not hurt, there are no damages, no one even knows what he looks like or even remembers what his name is. He should not be able to collect money for this.

 

[JonBoy]

The police made the kid go to a library with out his required ID??? That's how it started...

The phsyical abuse started with the officer, not the kid. I've already stated the kid was stupid, should've listened, should've obeyed, etc, etc, but the ABUSE was started by the police the minute they laid hands on him without any warning or reason.

 

[JonBoy]

No, UCLAPD didn't start it. The student's bad attitude started it if you want to get technical. And for the record, the officer who did the Tasing has been Tased at least once. It's a requirement to legally carry the Taser.

If bad attitudes are to blame, we're all getting tased.

Bad attitudes didn't force the cop to grab his arm. That was done well before the student ever had an attitude with the cop(s). That's why I said the cop started it, because when it came to the student and the cop, the student had done nothing "wrong" or "illegal" (to the cop, or around the cop) prior to being grabbed.

In a broad sense, yes, you're right. If the kid had a better attitude, this wouldn't have happened in the first place.

What can I say except that he was and is dumb?