Thirdly, -and this next comment doesn’t necessarily apply to you as I don’t know your position on this issue- but I want to address it because I come across this defense of violent police force all the time.

I have both supported the use of force in situations where the community as a whole came out against it – and have been opposed to the use of force at times when it has been used. If that makes sense.

The thing to remember that hindsight is 20/20 – officers only know what they know at the time of the incident – and sometimes what might seem wrong and illegal after the fact may indeed be legal at the time that it happened.

This is why the complete context of the situation is important – and not just what we see on the video – we need to know the whole story.

There’s a great set of videos on youtube that illustrate this point. One of the videos makes a police shooting look like an unjustified use of deadly force – but the second video angle from the other squad car shows what really happened – and what the first video didn’t show – making the shooting a clean and proper use of force.

Have a great thanksgiving -
Matt

Granted that situations exist in which simply handcuffing a subject nevertheless fails to prevent him or her from violently attacking an officer. Does that fact by default justify preemptively tasering a subject repeatedly simply because the student ‘goes limp’ when the officers try to escort him out? Once again, I have a hard time imagining a proper justification for repeated tasering when the subject is merely demonstrating a non-violent, albeit annoying, resistance to police.

Secondly, your remarks about the effects of the taser gun support my argument that the taser was improperly used. You claim above, “Because once the taser is turned off, the pain fades immediately, the an individual can move relatively quickly after that. It is not a permanent or long-lasting effect.” Given that the effects of taserering don’t actually incapacitate the subject for a significant amount of time, how is this supposed to ensure the officers involved a non-violent compliance from the subject? Even if I grant you that the first tasering was justified (which I don’t) I do not see how the repeated use of force against the subject serve any purpose other than to provoke him into a rage and consequently a violent retaliation. The officer responsible for handling the taser at the scene certainly doesn’t have a clean record for good judgment: http://blogging.la/archives/2006/11/ucla_taser_incident_just_keeps.phtml

Thirdly, -and this next comment doesn’t necessarily apply to you as I don’t know your position on this issue- but I want to address it because I come across this defense of violent police force all the time. Having been born in a country in which the brutal use of police force against civilians was common practice I consequently know how easy it is for a good system to become corrupt. I therefore cringe at the thought that we should by default trust in the good judgment of the individual members of a police department here simply because the group as a whole aims to apply the law (which is fallible and often unjust). Just because someone carries a badge does not by fiat ensure that he or she has good judgment while handling suspects in often stressful and difficult situations. This I’m sure sounds profoundly mundane to say, yet I routinely meet people who practice this blind faith. On a much smaller scale, I see on a daily basis how aggressive security guards can be with what little authority they have (my job takes me into courthouses all day). Having the power to legally use a baton or gun of any type can provoke the worst kind of behavior in the beholders and so I am extra weary of many of those with the most license to use them.

Finally, I’d like to give most police officers a huge amount of credit for the exceptional job that they do. Certainly not everyone is capable of putting themselves literally and often in the line of fire (certainly not myself) and nevertheless continually carry themselves professionally with good judgment and humility. I make a perfect case out of myself as someone who most likely would not have great judgment in a potentially dangerous situation and hence I actively take responsibilit for that by not going out and doing something inappropriate for me, like joining the police force. The fact that most police officers do not abuse their powers even tho many civillians abuse theirs speaks to the amazing capacity the police force has to do good in the world. Tasering an uncooperative student studying in the library, however, does not fit into the above category. It is just as important to credit those who do their jobs right as it is to criticize those who don’t.

I am not trying to justify anything, who I am to say what the cop did was right or wrong, but this is not a racial issue. As a hispanic UCLA student, I have had opportunities to create situations like this. I am a forgetful person and last year I did forget my student ID when I went to the Powell to pull an all-nighter. I think it was about 11:30pm or so, when the CSO (Community Service Officers) came around to check ID’s. First of all, they never target just one student. I have witness this checks upwards of fifty times. When the CSO came to check mine, I was politely asked to leave, and from a distance, he watched me walk out the door. Was I targeted because of my race? Answer this question to answer the previous: Was I the only person asked to show proof of being a student? This guy was trying to make a point right off the bat. In a statement released by his lawyer a few days ago, it states that he refused to show his ID because he felt he was being targeted because he was a persian male. Does that not clearly state his intent in the whole incident? He was trying to make a point, cause a scene, and provoke the enforcement officers. Once again, I want to point out that I am not saying I approve or dissaprove of the actions the UCPD took, I am trying to take a neutral stance.

All of you people screaming racism and asking for this cops head, get off your high horse and be rational. When developing opinions about situations like this, be objective. Bringing emotions and other agendas into this could lead me to the conclusion that the cop should have used his taser ten times as much. Obviously, I am not saying that, but the irrationality that leads to that conclusion goes both ways. Too bad my devil’s advocate stance isnt the popular opinion or there would be a hundred posts on this page supporting it.

People, just please be objective and rational. You owe it to yourself and those who read your material.

I have a very hard time seeing how an already handcuffed guy -who already insisted to police on leaving the premises – is justifiably tasered over and over again.

I watched a guy who was properly handcuffed get up and proceed to seriously injure an officer by striking him with his head repeatedly. The officer’s skull was cracked and since suffers seizures regularly. He can no longer work on the street and works now as a communications officer.

Just because a person is handcuffed does not make them any less of a threat.

Secondly, since tasers are meant to incapacitate suspects, why do the officers repeatedly demand the guy stand up after having used a taser on him? This makes no sense to me and in fact seems to undermine the very point of a taser gun.

Because once the taser is turned off, the pain fades immediately, the an individual can move relatively quickly after that. It is not a permanent or long-lasting effect.

Matt

I’m not a police officer, so I can’t possibly know the extent to which you endanger yourselves for the sake of duty – but I imagine that the extent to which you do is by no means a small feat. That being said, one thing that we do know from the video is that the young man was already handcuffed upon recieving multiple blows with the taser gun. Altho I understand that it is in the police officer’s interest of safety to manage him, I have a very hard time seeing how an already handcuffed guy -who already insisted to police on leaving the premises – is justifiably tasered over and over again.
Secondly, since tasers are meant to incapacitate suspects, why do the officers repeatedly demand the guy stand up after having used a taser on him? This makes no sense to me and in fact seems to undermine the very point of a taser gun.

Matt, perhaps your professional training may teach you otherwise, but my common sense told me that if the students had been about to get physical, they wouldn’t have bothered to ask for names and badge numbers.

True, but hindsight is 20/20 – prosecutors, courts, and internal investigations must deal with the mindset of the officer at the time that the situation occurred.

If you’re an officer in this sitution – trying to deal with an unruly suspect – and you have a large crowd that seriously outnumbers you and your fellow officers – there’s not alot of room for niceities.

Again, I believe the officer’s comment was inappropriate. However, I wouldn’t have been much nicer in his shoes with that crowd. We could debate the situation after it was over – not during it.

I’m not a lawyer, but my guess is that that’s a pretty flagrant abuse of power, if not outright assault.

I am not an officer in California and know little about their state statutes, however this is borderline assault under common-law and would likely never result in a conviction. I can’t think of a single prosecutor that would seek a charge on this.

No one was armed, everyone involved was sober.

I don’t know this – and neither do you. And certainly the officers in the middle of this situation did not know this.

When you underwent the training session, did they stun you repeatedly in the space of a few minutes? At full voltage? Or did they just zap you for a fraction of a second at the lowest setting?

I underwent shocks of 3, 5, and 10 seconds. Once using the barbs and the other two in drive-stun setting. It’s not a pleasant experience by any means. I would describe it at the most pain I have ever experienced – that instantly faded when the voltage was turned off.

That said, I can assure you that you’d rather be hit with a taser than hit with a baton.

And their use–and abuse–should be tightly controlled if they’re to remain an effective tool.

I agree completely.

I do hope this incident serves to make people think about how accepting we’ve become of authoritarianism and of the naked exercise of power in this country, and whether we want to rely on the infliction of agonizing pain as our preferred means of dealing with anyone who seems to threaten us.

I don’t agree with your comment about naked exercise of power – but that’s your opinion and I get to have mine.

As a law enforcement officer, I would not hesitate to use an appropriate amount of force against any individual that I felt was threatening myself or another individual – and that includes tasers, impact weapons, or lethal force.

Was this situation out of hand? I’m not sure. There are things that we don’t know – and we’ve yet to hear from the officers involved… I do know that there’s an awful lot of folks commenting here who are completely misinformed and ignorant of both the law – and of role and responsibilities that law enforcement officers have.

Matt

The student in question violated no-one’s rights, and therefore committed no crime. He warned the cops not to touch him and they assaulted him anyway. That student would have been totally justified to use any and all means at his disposal to defend himself. Likewise, the spectators would have been completely justified to step in and defend him. In fact, I’m embarrassed by the fact that nobody did so.

Umm, no, he would have not. And no, they would have not either.

Doing so would have had him end up either charged with a felony or killed by a police officer for “using any and all means at his disposal to defend himself” – and the same for the crowd.

Using force against a police officer is simply not a good idea.

Matt

Me thinks Matt Craven doth protest too much. Its OK Matt, step across that thin blue line. You amongst friends here.

I think I’ve come amongst a group that has a severe misunderstanding of what the law is – both statutory and case law – as well as a complete lack of comprehension of the duties, policies, and functions of law enforcement.

Looks to me like the kid should have left the library when asked if he was not authorized to be there. The idiot cops should have just carrued him out of the building if he wouldn’t walk but these bozos just couldn’t resist a little torture since they had the kid cuffed and he was not a threat.

The student should have left when asked.

While I still believe that we do not know the whole story here – calling the cops idiots and bozos doesn’t exactly help the situation.

I think the uniforms and the side arms compensate very well for the tiny penises, don’t you?

Oh, I see. An objective statement.

wow

Matt