Kid gets tasered in UCLA library...for no reason

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
There needs to be criminal penalties for police officers who use tasers without sufficient justification.

[/ QUOTE ]The existing law should suffice. Whether or not to apply the law is a political choice.

Incidentally, one of the most (or, rather, least) amusing posts on the topic was when a green-colored poster sweepingly dismissed the standard passive-resistance tactic used by non-violent activists, from Ghandi to the civil rights movement. Read it here :

[ QUOTE ]
haha i love these guys who think they are geniuses by going limp when trying to be taken from a place.. great idea morons! they deserve anything they get.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, next time let the dogs at 'em.

Mickey Brausch

[ShakeZula06]

As I said earlier in the thread, the lack of outrage at the cops in this video is astounding. And as someone else said earlier in this thread, it's like I'm counting who is going to welcome fascism. Seriously, I watch this video and I just get plain mad.

[John Kilduff]

"As I said earlier in the thread, the lack of outrage at the cops in this video is astounding. "

I agree, and reading these threads a common opinion theme seems to be, "Well, the kid deserved it."

Whether he deserved it ir not is irrelevant, because if cops are given the authority to do this in such instance, there will be many more cases where they use or abuse that power when the person *doesn't* deserve it.

Anyone remember an old Star Trek episode where Mr. Spock said imperatively, "Mr. Scott, your agonizer please!" and then proceeded to agonize the hapless Scotty.

I don't know what the law is regarding such uses for the taser in the library instance, but if it isn't illegal for the cops to do that in such cases, it should be made so.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
Arguing right or wrong is pointless, a jury is going to award this guy a very nice settlement regardless.


Anyway since when does an investigation starts with 5 tazer shots?

[/ QUOTE ]

Any time a man with a gun and a badge decides. If he has a bad day and his wife doens't give him sex, or for any other possible reason he could be upset... he will decide if he is going to take it out on you. He is not there to protect and serve. This should be quite obvious to anyone over 18 yrs old in the USA.

[OrangeCat]

Apparently, the use of a taser in this situation was within the University guidelines. It also sounds like a taser can be used against passive resistors. Below is an excerpt from the UCPD taser policy (source: dailybruin.com)

[ QUOTE ]
Use of Force
301.24 PAIN COMPLIANCE TECHNIQUES
Pain compliance techniques may be very effective in controlling a passive or actively resisting individual. Officers may only apply those pain compliance techniques for which the officer has received departmentally approved training and only when the officer reasonably believes that the use of such a technique appears necessary to further a legitimate law enforcement purpose. Officers utilizing any pain compliance technique should consider the totality of the circumstance including, but not limited to:
(a) The potential for injury to the officer(s) or others if the technique is not used,
(b) The potential risk of serious injury to the individual being controlled,
(c) The degree to which the pain compliance technique may be controlled in application according to the level of resistance,

(d) The nature of the offense involved,
(e) The level of resistance of the individual(s) involved,
(f) The need for prompt resolution of the situation,
(g) If time permits (e.g. passive demonstrators), other reasonable alternatives.

The application of any pain compliance technique shall be discontinued once the officer determines that full compliance has been achieved.

[/ QUOTE ]


Later on the document says:

[ QUOTE ]
6) CRITERIA FOR USE - DRIVE STUN
Authorized personnel may use a Taser in a drive stun capacity, as a pain compliance technique, in the following situations.
A) To eliminate physical resistance from an arrestee in accomplishing an arrest or physical search.


[/ QUOTE ]

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
Apparently, the use of a taser in this situation was within the University guidelines. It also sounds like a taser can be used against passive resistors. Below is an excerpt from the UCPD taser policy (source: dailybruin.com)


[/ QUOTE ]

Looking at this it is not clear if they were within in the guidlines or not. There is this that supports the use of the taser:

[ QUOTE ]
6) CRITERIA FOR USE - DRIVE STUN
Authorized personnel may use a Taser in a drive stun capacity, as a pain compliance technique, in the following situations.
A) To eliminate physical resistance from an arrestee in accomplishing an arrest or physical search.

[/ QUOTE ]

But looking at these:
[ QUOTE ]
(a) The potential for injury to the officer(s) or others if the technique is not used,
(b) The potential risk of serious injury to the individual being controlled,
(c) The degree to which the pain compliance technique may be controlled in application according to the level of resistance,

(d) The nature of the offense involved,
(e) The level of resistance of the individual(s) involved,
(f) The need for prompt resolution of the situation,
(g) If time permits (e.g. passive demonstrators), other reasonable alternatives.

[/ QUOTE ]

(a) Doesn't look like there is much potential for injury to the officers.
(b) There is some poential risk to this individual. The risks are small, but it is definitely there.
(c) I am not 100% sure what this means, but how much resistance can someone who is handcuffed and on the ground give.
(d) The nature of the offense involved was failing to show ID in a library.
(e) He was being loud, but there is no evidence he attempted to strike the officers.
(f) It is the middle of the night in the library, there probbaly isn't any real time pressure here.
(g) It isn't clear that this is much difference than (f).

[Poofler]

The stun gun provision also says "physical resistance". We don't know if refusing to stand up and walk yourself out is physical resistance. You might need some sort of active musclar resistance. If he wasn't hitting the cops or trying to run/wiggle away, it's not too clear.

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
The stun gun provision also says "physical resistance". We don't know if refusing to stand up and walk yourself out is physical resistance. You might need some sort of active musclar resistance. If he wasn't hitting the cops or trying to run/wiggle away, it's not too clear.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do think that if it is found that these officeers followed procedure that the procedure needs to be changed. There probbaly aren't as many on a university police force, but I know quite a few cops are looking for a reason to hit a college kid. When I was in college a small riot broke out at the time change and they got help form neighboring jurisdictions. Things got really bad becuse the neighboring jurisdictions had nothing in common with college students and wanted to hit college students.

[dknightx]

guys, please think for a sec. They didnt use the stun gun in its typical fashion, which is when they shoot the prongs out, and it hooks onto the person's skin, or whatever. They used it in DRIVE STUN capacity, which is A LOT less painful, and really not even that big of a deal (you are a pansy if you think otherwise). As the rules state, it is perfect acceptable to use the taser in DRIVE STUN mode when the person is resisting physically, which is very likely the case here.

[OrangeCat]

[ QUOTE ]


(a) Doesn't look like there is much potential for injury to the officers.
(b) There is some poential risk to this individual. The risks are small, but it is definitely there.
(c) I am not 100% sure what this means, but how much resistance can someone who is handcuffed and on the ground give.
(d) The nature of the offense involved was failing to show ID in a library.
(e) He was being loud, but there is no evidence he attempted to strike the officers.
(f) It is the middle of the night in the library, there probbaly isn't any real time pressure here.
(g) It isn't clear that this is much difference than (f).

[/ QUOTE ]

a) Sure there is. Everybody is safer if the kid walks out under his own power.
b) See a
c) Not sure either
d) Failure to show ID was the start of it all but the offence he was charged with was resisting and obstructing a police officer.
e) The way I read it, passive resistance is justification enough for UCPD to use a “pain compliance” technique.
f) It’s late, a crowd is gathering and there is a potential for the situation getting really ugly. I’d say there was plenty of reason to get this over with ASAP.