Update: UCLA police tazered a student twice because he didn’t have his campus ID!

Published on November 17th, 2006

Posted by SN in General

According to a report on the university’s Daily Bruin, the incident occured at around 11.30 pm on Tuesday when security officers at the Powell Library CLICC computer lab “asked a male student using a computer in the back of the room to leave when he was unable to produce a BruinCard during a random check“.

“It was at this point that the officers shot the student with a Taser for the first time, causing him to fall to the floor and cry out in pain. The student also told the officers he had a medical condition.”

The video shows the tasered ne’er-do-well shouting “Here’s your Patriot Act, here’s your fucking abuse of power”, while refusing to get up. Shortly thereafter, the cops tasered him a second time for his trouble.

UCPD officers later confirmed that the man at the receiving end of the righteous tasering was a student, but didn’t name him or give any further details.

Update: This one is nearly off the irony scale. Three UCLA cops were recently given “Tazer Awards” for subduing a mental patient earlier this year! Way to go guys, treat yourself to an extra donut! Maybe if you’re lucky Santa will bring you some quadriplegic kids to zap!

Update II: The victim in this attack, Mostafa Tabatabainejad, is accusing the UCLA police of racial profiling…

Associated Press – November 17, 2006:

A student who was shocked by a campus police officer’s Taser gun after he refused to show ID at a UCLA library thought he was being singled out by the officer because of his Middle Eastern appearance, his lawyer said.

Yagman said his client declined to show his school ID because he thought he was being targeted for his appearance. His family is of Iranian descent.

Update III: It appears the UCLA doesn’t trust its internal police force, as the university has ordered an outside and independent probe of this attack.

Los Angeles Times – November 18, 2006:

Hoping to calm the furor created when UCLA police used a Taser to subdue a student studying in Powell Library, the university’s acting chancellor announced Friday that a veteran Los Angeles law enforcement watchdog would head up an independent investigation of the incident.

Norman Abrams said he ordered the probe after the university received numerous calls and e-mails from parents and alumni raising concerns about the officers’ actions during the videotaped Tuesday night arrest, which has been widely seen on TV news and the YouTube website.

“I want to assure them that the UCLA campus is a safe environment. Student safety and treatment are of paramount concern at UCLA,” Abrams said. “We plan to move ahead promptly with a complete and unbiased review.”

Abrams said Bobb has a proven track record looking into allegations of police misconduct, including the Rodney King beating and more recently the riots at the L.A. County jail system.

For everyone who thinks the cops did the right thing, you might want to read this…

One of the issues Bobb’s investigation will examine is whether the officers complied with the university police rules for using Tasers.

Several local police agencies — including the LAPD and Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department — allow officers to use Tasers only if a suspect poses a physical threat or is acting combatively.

The sheriff’s policies expressly say deputies can’t use Tasers simply to move someone

196 users responded in " Update: UCLA police tazered a student twice because he didn’t have his campus ID! "

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url

# 1 Improbus said, on November 16th, 2006 at 11:58 am

This is what happens when you trample on civil rights. Those cops should be fired.

# 2 James Hill said, on November 16th, 2006 at 12:01 pm

Just another reason not to treat police with respect. While a shame, they’re bringing it upon themselves.

That being said, to think this is a direct result of the Patriot Act is a joke. This is a result of hiring auto school dropouts as police officers.

# 3 gquaglia said, on November 16th, 2006 at 12:05 pm

#1 Wrong, this is what happens when you have no respect for authority and think you can do anything you want. The student didn’t have his ID, was asked to leave, didn’t and only did so after police arrived. When the police are called, they are obligated to ID the person in question, again the student was uncooperative and did not heed the officer’s instructions. He was arrested using non lethal force. No ones civil rights were trampled here.

# 4 Bryan said, on November 16th, 2006 at 12:08 pm

This wasn’t an abuse of authority, maybe next time they will show some respect for the law. Or be more civil with the officer, perhaps saying “Yes, office

# 5 SN said, on November 16th, 2006 at 12:09 pm

“The student didn’t have his ID, was asked to leave, didn’t and only did so after police arrived.”

God, remind me never to vote for you for the US Supreme Court!

First, he was a student thus he every right to be there.

Second, how was he supposed to leave when an officer grabbed and held his arm?!

And lastly, if tazers are a non-lethal means of force, then why do people die from their affects?!

# 6 gquaglia said, on November 16th, 2006 at 12:11 pm

This is a result of hiring auto school dropouts as police officers.

Get a clue, getting hired as a police officer is not like it was years ago. Many department require a 2 year degree, while some require 4 years. The police academy can be anywhere from 4 to 7 months depending on the agency. Officers are subject to drug and physiological screening and are considered professionals. Drop outs become corrections officers and mall security.

# 7 Bryan said, on November 16th, 2006 at 12:12 pm

#5 You have to be tazzered before you are permitted to use one.

Also, although he was a student – He was in a place that at the time required proper student identification as a way to monitor who is allowed inside.

If he did not have his ID, he should have left and came back with it.

# 8 DSL said, on November 16th, 2006 at 12:12 pm

#1…unfortunately the worst punishment these cops might receive is a stern talking to on the 11 o clock news and a week of paid vacation. I say we have every right to disrespect the police. We pay their salaries, after all.

# 9 Sundog said, on November 16th, 2006 at 12:13 pm

Give them power to act like thugs, and they will surely show themselves.

# 10 SN said, on November 16th, 2006 at 12:14 pm

“He was in a place that at the time required proper student identification as a way to monitor who is allowed inside.”

Show me that rule please. That ULCA students are required to have their ID or the university reserves the right to use force.

“If he did not have his ID, he should have left and came back with it. “

How was he supposed to leave when the police grabbed his arm and wouldn’t let go? Heck, how was he supposed to leave after the first tazer attack when he was on the ground asking for medical help?!

And if you just spent a hour or so working on a project, wouldn’t you take the time to save your work before you left?

# 11 gquaglia said, on November 16th, 2006 at 12:17 pm

I say we have every right to disrespect the police. We pay their salaries, after all.

And they have the right to arrest you each and every time. Maybe you would rather there was no police, just like the wacko San Francisco official who doesn’t think we should have a military. Then you could do anything you wanted until you met someone bigger and then he could do whatever he wanted to YOU.

# 12 SN said, on November 16th, 2006 at 12:19 pm

“Then you could do anything you wanted until you met someone bigger and then he could do whatever he wanted to YOU.”

Wow, you just perfectly described exactly what happened in this very incident. Thanks a lot!

# 13 DSL said, on November 16th, 2006 at 12:26 pm

Actually I would rather not have a public police force. If I’m going to pay someone to protect me, I want to choose who to pay for. Doesn’t it seem a little silly that we’re forced to pay for THE police force, and if we don’t, the police will come and threaten us? Sounds a lot like….oh I know! The mafia!

# 14 Edward DiNovo said, on November 16th, 2006 at 12:28 pm

Blind obedience of authority… yeah, that’s just what we need people.

# 15 Mark Strube said, on November 16th, 2006 at 12:29 pm

Hey, gquaglia? You just described the police, bud. They’re the bigger ones doing whatever they want. By the way, do a little research – a standing military beyond the Navy is illegal.

# 16 Allen McDonald, El Galloviejo® said, on November 16th, 2006 at 12:33 pm

‘ ¡ PAPERS, PLEASE ! ‘

Welcome to al-usa’s christofascism.

Allen McDonald, El Galloviejo®

# 17 Tom said, on November 16th, 2006 at 12:34 pm

WTF.

# 18 Disappointed said, on November 16th, 2006 at 12:34 pm

I can’t believe there are people defending the cops’ actions in this. Amazing.

The guy was assaulted by the police because he pissed them off. It happens all the time. This time, they were video recorded doing it.

# 19 Ascii King said, on November 16th, 2006 at 12:37 pm

Sorry, SN but you are wrong again.

- The student did not have proper identification and the school chose to enforce that rule through police action. I suppose it was technically trespassing.
- The student DID NOT leave right away, but waited until the police arrived.
- While leaving the police roughly grabbed his arm to stop him. You see he no longer had the option to leave. He had lost that option when he chose not to use it.
- He immediately began resisting the police. Even in Canada that is a big no-no. Just because YOU don’t it was that important doesn’t matter.
-The police told him several times, in clear plain language what they wanted him to do and he refused.
-They told him the consequences and he still refused.
-After they tazed him, the other students began to crowd the area.

These cops did absolutely nothing wrong. even threatening to taze the other students wasn’t wrong. It wasn’t a threat, it was a warning. Three officers in a crowd of agitated people need to maintain control of the situation.

The actions of the student were understandable. The actions of the police were understandable. The ONLY question here is does the UCLA want to use police to enforce it’s rules in the future?

# 20 Pekuliar said, on November 16th, 2006 at 12:41 pm

Why do we have to lay a think layer of political commentary on every incident we see or hear about! It just confounds things and locks down logical problem solving and prevention.

My bet is the root cause of this problem has to do with poor security personnel selection and lack of training. IF so the HR director of this University should be fired along with the officers who turned a simple student oversight into a disgusting YouTube event

# 21 natefrog said, on November 16th, 2006 at 12:43 pm

This is the most egregious use of tasers I’ve witnessed on videos yet. Those cops didn’t follow the proper use for escalation of force. Tasers are a great thing in theory. In practice, many cops are abusing tasers to save themselves the trouble of doing the hard work that comes with the job.

And the cops’ logic was great, too:

“GET UP! GET…UP!”

Hmm, he’s just been tasered and is probably incapable of standing up under his own power now… So let’s taser him again! Brilliant!

# 22 bac said, on November 16th, 2006 at 12:48 pm

#19 – While leaving the police roughly grabbed his arm to stop him. You see he no longer had the option to leave. He had lost that option when he chose not to use it.

The police handled this all wrong. If the student was leaving, then the police should have just followed the student out of the building. The police had no cause to grab and harm this student. The police have no right to touch you unless you touch them first.

The police in this incident should be arrested for assault. Someone on the scene should have called the police to arrest the police doing harm to the student.

The police harming the student do not deserve respect. They deserve jail time.

# 23 SN said, on November 16th, 2006 at 12:49 pm

“The student did not have proper identification and the school chose to enforce that rule through police action.”

Where is university that rule. I’m waiting.

“The student DID NOT leave right away, but waited until the police arrived.”

He was saving his work?! I don’t know. But I do know he was a student who had paid a lot of money to attend the school. Does sending someone to jail and the hospital merely for not having his papers really fit the “crime”? Think about that before answering!

“While leaving the police roughly grabbed his arm to stop him. You see he no longer had the option to leave. He had lost that option when he chose not to use it.”

So the police forced him to stay so they could use force to make him leave?!

“He immediately began resisting the police. “

He was a student working and he was saving his work. God, how difficult was that to understand?!

“The police told him several times, in clear plain language what they wanted him to do and he refused.”

Wait, I thought you said the victim gave up his right to leave?! I’m confused. Are you saying that police wanted him to leave? So, explain why they grabbed him, refused to let him go, and then tazered him? How does that process facilitate him leaving? If I wanted someone to leave the last thing I’d do his grab him then tazer him!

“They told him the consequences and he still refused.”

Was that before or after they grabbed his armed and refuse to let go?

“After they tazed him, the other students began to crowd the area.”

Oh, so police have the right to tazer someone on the ground when a crowed gathers. I’ll have to remember that, thanks!

“These cops did absolutely nothing wrong. “

I don’t know, asking someone to leave and then using force to keep him from leaving seems pretty wrong to me!

# 24 Scott Gant said, on November 16th, 2006 at 12:51 pm

The other students should have rushed these rent-a-cops and put them all down. I’m sick of this crap.

I’m also sick of these idiots with the blind allegiance to authority. To them, cops can do no wrong.

Also, these are not real cops, these are the ones that couldn’t get hired on a real police force and are shuffled off to campus police. Legally they’re cops only in name…but in practice and attitude, they’re all waiting to get a job on a real police force. I’ve worked with quite a number of these people.

But what transpired before this? Did the security guy in the computer lab ask the student to leave since he didn’t have ID…then how long did he give him? Was he reasonable? Or was he a total dick? Couldn’t he have given him a few minutes to pack his stuff, save his work and leave? What if the student WAS taking too long, couldn’t he just have gone back there and said “hey, you gotta go pal, thems the rules, let’s go”. Sounds more like this guy gave the student the order, and when the student didn’t hop-to, he called the campus cops.

Is judgement not allowed anymore? Just strict adherence to rules without question? It’s like there being a rule in a high-school of not running down the halls…then a teacher is walking down the hall and he sees a student running. Does he just say “hey, no running, knock it off”…or does he call the police to escort the student off campus because the student was breaking a rule? You decide.

# 25 Max Bell said, on November 16th, 2006 at 12:56 pm

You guys are all missing the point.

I just saw Gquaglia and James Hill disagree.

Starting gun for the end times, kids. We should be stocking up on bottled water and ammunition.

# 26 Ballenger said, on November 16th, 2006 at 12:59 pm

Two large mistakes happened here. One, for his own benefit the student should have opted to stand up if he could. I would have been crawling toward the door and the nearest law firm. The second was made by the, soon to be former campus cops, who tazered the guy, stated clearly for the audio record “stand up or you will be tazered again” and then to be abso-f%$king-lutely sure a jury would find for the plaintiff, zapped him again. It’s hard to get this much stupid on a short video. And for anyone who thinks this is an example of a lack of respect for authority, you are absolutely right. The problem is, it is also an example of why attitude is so common.

# 27 topcad said, on November 16th, 2006 at 1:00 pm

1. You don’t taser a guy and then immediately force him to get up. The police escalated the situation by repeatedly yelling out commands in the library disrupting the entire building.
2. I AM GUESSING (since we don’t have all the facts) that the student was asked to produce a STUDENT id. He didn’t have it and wouldn’t leave. Police are called. Student sees police and decides to leave. Police ask him for any identification and student refuses and tries to leave. That’s when the crap hit the fan.

# 28 JimR said, on November 16th, 2006 at 1:00 pm

This belongs in omfg magazine ! That guy was an a-hole… big time. He deserved everything dished out to him… he practically demanded it.
Use your imagination as to why a non-student would want access to restricted areas. The security is there to protect the students and university property. Without ID you are essentially trespassing and you should look at the rules and liberties allowed for the apprehension of trespassers.

Copied from the UCLA site:
“A valid Registration Card (Reg Card) is the official student identification and is required, along with the UCLA Student I.D. Card, for all University services and student activities. Students should carry it with them as they are asked to show it for student health services, library privileges, athletic and cultural student ticket rates, recreation center, check cashing, and many other campus services.”

And this (related to use of student lounge):
Security and periodic identification checks will be conducted at random by the UCLA Police Department (UCPD) and/or Community Service Officer (CSO). Any unauthorized person(s) will be removed from the center and/or charged with trespassing.

# 29 Calin said, on November 16th, 2006 at 1:01 pm

The police have no right to touch you unless you touch them first.

HAHA I love this. So, next time I rob a liquor store, I can just thumb my nose at the cops when they tell me to “HALT”? After all, they can’t touch me unless I touch them first.

I’M NOT TOUCHING YOU, I’M NOT TOUCHING YOU!!!!

# 30 jtoso said, on November 16th, 2006 at 1:02 pm

Stupid ass pompous college kids asking for badge numbers. Funny. Not like there wasn’t enough witnesses or anything.

# 31 Mucous said, on November 16th, 2006 at 1:03 pm

#5 – How did they know he was a student – He didn’t have his ID!

# 32 rctaylor said, on November 16th, 2006 at 1:07 pm

Blown way out of proportion. The guy could have been having a shitty day and choose a poor way to show it. Before tasers you would have a baton strike on a nerve plexus for pain to soften you up. Wielding batons can result in considerable more injury. You have someone flying into a rage in a public place. You have to bring him under control quickly before he hurts himself or someone else. Police work isn’t pretty. How many of you want to do it, I don’t.

# 33 stew said, on November 16th, 2006 at 1:11 pm

Boy you people live in a fantasy land. #1 rule, the guy with the gun is always right. If you ever forget rule #1 you stand a very good chance of dieing. I saw no violation of proceeder’s here only a kid you never had to do as he was told as a child. Reality is painful. I believe what most of the commenter’s here mistake for freedom is anarchy.

# 34 cheese said, on November 16th, 2006 at 1:13 pm

It’s times like these I actually miss the ’70’s. Honestly, there was a LOT of over-reaction going on here… not just by the cops, either. It’s time to Mellow out America. Respect shown by the bonehead heavy-handed cops, the bonehead student “i-want-attention” crybaby, and bonehead no common-sense “security operatives” would have kept all this in perspective.

Just what is a “security operative” anyway? Are computer labs dangerous at UCLA? This reminds me of an old Soviet Russian joke:

It’s OK honey, I checked and it’s only a burglar. I was scared it was the police.

# 35 Ascii King said, on November 16th, 2006 at 1:13 pm

Why do you think they are not real cops?

SN, you are stretching to make it fit. The police didn’t want the student to leave, the security guards did. THEY called the police and that is the only questionable action that happened. I personally don’t think police should be used to enforce a school rule because things like this happen.

Unless the police were in the hall when they got the call, then the student had plenty of time to leave. And if a cop grabs your arm, you do not have the right to try to get away from him.

To the police it doesn’t matter if he’s a student or if he’s the mayor. They were called in for some reason, possibly trespassing. The UCLA decided this person was a trespasser, not the cops.

Hey #23

So, you think the police should just politely follow ne’er do wells around? If we just ignore the police they can’t hurt us? If a cop tells you to stay still so he can talk to you, you do it. You are required by law and it is perfectly reasonable to expect it.

I am a big liberal weenie and I honestly think that police abuse their power all the time. I think they have a gang mentality and pick and choose their criminals. However, this incident is not one of those times. The student can ignore the local security all he likes, but he may not ignore the police.

# 36 natefrog said, on November 16th, 2006 at 1:14 pm

#32: You know, at the university I go to, we also are required to have campus ID on our person whenever on campus. But the difference is–at least so far–we don’t go totally ape shit when someone doesn’t have their ID. Last I checked, the cops have radios, don’t they? Out here in Nebraska, it’s pretty easy to see if someone is a student by checking out their name, student number, etc. I bet the kid could have even logged into his student records/account page to show them, but they wouldn’t have listened anyway. These cops were looking for a fight, and they escalated the situation more than it should have been.

I hope these clowns are prosecuted for assault with a deadly weapon. And more power to the students, it was darn close to a riot, they could have taken down the cops and placed them under citizen’s arrest….

# 37 Scott Gant said, on November 16th, 2006 at 1:17 pm

So I get it, police can’t be reasonable, they can’t have a cool head and defuse a situation. They can only escalate things. They’re not suppose to think, just draw their batons and whack a few people or tazer then because “He deserved everything dished out to him… he practically demanded it.”

Iron men with wooden sticks have been replaced by wooden men with iron sticks. But don’t forget, these ARE rent-a-cops. If they had judgment and a cool head and were able to defuse a situation in a reasonable manner, they would be real cops….instead of unemployed which is exactly what’s going to happen to them.

# 38 Ascii King said, on November 16th, 2006 at 1:18 pm

OK, so I don’t know how to use blockquote.

# 39 natefrog said, on November 16th, 2006 at 1:21 pm

Actually, these were fully trained and certified police officers…

http://www.ucpd.ucla.edu/

…Which only makes it worse, I think. Around here, the common perception amongst students is the local campus cops are cops that weren’t good enough to make the city police force… If there’s any truth to that, well, you reap what you sow…

# 40 J said, on November 16th, 2006 at 1:23 pm

There is no law saying you have to “respect” authority. If you think there is show it to me. You have to obey the law and a lawfully given order by an officer but they can not arrest you for being disrespectful. Unless that disrespect is interfering with their enforcement of the law. Respect goes both ways and a lot of police officers don’t show any respect for the power they have been given.

Now, I don’t think these officers violated his rights, at least not from what I could make out on that video. They did however exasperate the situation by there actions which show a lack of judgment. It appears the situation could have been avoided and they did nothing but show their “perceived” power.

# 41 Roc Rizzo said, on November 16th, 2006 at 1:24 pm

This is what happens when the Crack Ho’s run the joint!

What would have happened when the woman who asked the “officer” for his credentials, and he refused to produce them, had she said, “You might zap me, but you can’t zap ALL of us at once”

The officer was just as much in the wrong for not giving the student HIS credentials when asked for them. I work indirectly with a police agency, and believe me when I say that there are MANY of them that believe that they “don’t have to obey the law, because [they] ARE the law!” MANY of them would love to rush and clobber the first person they could, but because they would get reprimanded, they don’t.

Welcome to the 21st Century. Big Brother is still watching.

# 42 RBG said, on November 16th, 2006 at 1:26 pm

I suppose the campus security officers have more training and restraint than the police officers? They seemed to have acted properly. I suspect the police officers had every right to do what they did. And when, oh when, are people going to learn that you don’t mess with people who have weapons? Even when those with the weapons are completely wrong.

That said, the whole scene stinks. And I hope and expect it will result in procedural changes. How is it that supposed intelligent people in authority could not use their creative smarts to quietly coax the fellow outside – without disrupting and upsetting a whole lot of students? Add to this the unfortunate fellow’s sure desire to make a nice big outburst against “the Man.”

RBG

# 43 V said, on November 16th, 2006 at 1:28 pm

This is absurd. #1 is wrong, the police should be charged with assault and the university should be sued if they condone this. Police are supposed to be trained to deal with arrogant pricks. If he was being an arrogant prick, fine, they can escort him off the premises. There is NO excuse to use violence (yes, horrifically painful electrical current used to disable a person is definitely violence) in a situation that is merely asinine.

As for the girl who asked for their names and badge number, good for her. Let them know in advance that what they’re doing is unacceptable. Let them know that they’re breeding contempt for authority. Let them know that if anyone in that room has any say in the matter, they will burn.

They can wait until the trial to know they were caught on video as well.

# 44 Ascii King said, on November 16th, 2006 at 1:29 pm

Well put, #40.

If these aren’t real cops, but just security guards then I agree that they went overboard and should be fired. And I also apologize to SN, though I still think he’s just making up arguments that aren’t real.

You don’t have to respect the cops because they have a gun. You have to do what they say, though because they are the cops.

# 45 T.D. said, on November 16th, 2006 at 1:30 pm

I’m sure the German people watched similar things happen to the Jews and had similar conversations. I have almost been run over on my bike by cops running stop signs. I’m not worried about normal drivers they are nice, but cops don’t seem to care.

Money says that the cops were at fault on this one and abused their power. I saw and heard nothing that resembled someone really being confrontational with them.

Also whats with them not giving up their badge numbers? Next thing you know they’ll be wearing ski masks.

# 46 cheese said, on November 16th, 2006 at 1:31 pm

Um, can anyone explain to me why they have random I.D. checks at UCLA? That seems pretty intrusive. Has it always been that way over there? What are they looking for? Terrorist activity? Wouldn’t there be better ways to monitor that, like gather some evidence or something?

# 47 Some guy said, on November 16th, 2006 at 1:32 pm

Why do we have to say that any 1 person is at fault here. The way I see it all parties involved did some pretty stupid things.

Some things to note:
1. This could have all been avoided if the guy had his student ID on him to begin with. I did not attend UCLA but where I went to school the ID was practically required just to use the restroom. It was something that everyone accepted and nobody had a problem with because it kept people who didn’t pay for the services from being able to use or abuse them.

2. So the cops/rent-a-cops or whoever ask him to show some ID or leave. Sounds like he could have chosen then to leave, get his ID, then return and continue what he was doing, no problems.

On the other hand:
A. In general the people/cops who were trying to get the guy to leave made very bad decisions regarding thier approach to the situation. They seemed to be doing everything they could to exert thier position or supposed power over him rather than trying to resolve the problem.

B. Tasers and other supposedly non-lethal devices should only be used to protect against someone who poses an immediate physical threat. If a guy is waving a gun around then heck yeah hit him with a taser or even a real gun if necessary but this student didn’t have a knife or any kind of weapon so at the most extreme a set of handcuffs would have been more than adequate.

It just seems like all parties involved did everything they could to make the situation worse instead of resolving it peacefully. If I were to have to say any one party screwed up more than the other I might say that the police took it too far but overall everyone involved did some pretty dumb things.

Just my $.02

# 48 natefrog said, on November 16th, 2006 at 1:37 pm

I looked at the University of California (Faux) Police Department’s website again, and they’ve issued a press release on the matter:

http://tinyurl.com/yxq724

There’s certainly more to the story, but I still think police everywhere are abusing tasers.

# 49 Some guy said, on November 16th, 2006 at 1:37 pm

By the way. Nice video if it was really from a camera phone. 7 minutes worth of decent footage. Technology like that is going to have a big impact on situations like this in the future.

# 50 cheese said, on November 16th, 2006 at 1:37 pm

#48 Your $.02 is priceless.

# 51 David said, on November 16th, 2006 at 1:39 pm

That’s reprehensible. Tell me why library police officers are allowed to carry tasers, again?

And to the unconscionable people who are defending the police officers actions, since when do you have a right to taser someone who is not threatening you?! When someone is lying on the ground?!Disgusting.

# 52 cinenaut said, on November 16th, 2006 at 1:42 pm

I’m sure the German people watched similar things happen to the Jews and had similar conversations.

*ding* *ding* *ding*
We have a winner! The comment thread has officially jumped the shark by alluding to Nazism!

# 53 Some guy said, on November 16th, 2006 at 1:49 pm

I’m sure the German people watched similar things happen to the Jews and had similar conversations.

I think ID cards are an abused system.

“The Germans had pieces of flare that they made the Jews wear.”

# 54 cheese said, on November 16th, 2006 at 1:53 pm

#5 said:
…And lastly, if tazers are a non-lethal means of force, then why do people die from their affects?!

Maybe I can help answer that one. There is research going on into that mystery. There is a controversial theory about “Excited Delirium” that may or may not explain tazer deaths. It’s very controversial, so be careful of your sources when you google it !!! There are events that occur in a tazer death that are critical but rarely reported in the media, such as the length of time between the tazing and the occurance of death, and the length of time it takes for a paramedic to realize they are losing their patient. Also, look for the role acidosis plays in this event.

# 55 Ascii King said, on November 16th, 2006 at 1:53 pm

So are they cops or not? What is the difference? why are they called police officers if they are not officers? How was the guy arrested for resisting a police officer if they aren’t police officers?

Could someone please clear this up?

# 56 natefrog said, on November 16th, 2006 at 1:58 pm

They are cops. The intial point of contact was a community service officer (non-sworn officer) who escalated the incident to the sworn police officers (the ones who tasered the guy).

The link to the UCPD’s website is previously posted at #40.

# 57 WokTiny said, on November 16th, 2006 at 2:00 pm

I’m also amazed at how quickly this collected comments… is it lunch hour on the west coast or is this just all that much more empassioning?

# 58 Sundog said, on November 16th, 2006 at 2:02 pm

Stefan- Thank you UCLA police for making me appreciate living in Europe, the true home of democracy.

Yeah the UK ‘cough’, ‘cough’, is a true ‘cough’ home of democracy.

This is an an example of state sponsored terrorism. Get in line kids, cause we’re in control, if you dont like it, we’ll just taser you until you DO!

# 59 acree said, on November 16th, 2006 at 2:16 pm

I find it absolutely DISGUSTING that anyone here can find this a fair use of force. Respect for authority? Are you kidding me? Sure this kid acted irresponsibly and should have left right away. And its highly possible that his kid should have been arrested and questioned. However, when he was tasered, he was not a danger to the cops or the students. He was mearly shouting. This is a disgusting use of force and these things can even be lethal in rare cases. They should be used only in the most EXTREME circumstances. I challege the respondants to this article: Have any of you ever experienced the pain of a taser? I haven’t, but I’ve heard its one of the most painful things that can happen to you. So how about this, you shut up and stop endorsing this horrible treatment until you’ve experienced this for yourself.

Oh and by the way, this guy was a muslim. That tells you a lot right there. I’d bet my life that there was a racist element to this.

# 60 James said, on November 16th, 2006 at 2:20 pm

This is a particularly disturbing video that, personally, riled me up. I predict that it is going to spread on the internet like wildfire, and we’ll be hearing about it on NYTimes pretty soon. Remember Dean Howard’s scream?

Also, it is unambiguous to me that the police did not handle this situation correctly, whether the guy was cooperative or not. I find it incomprehensible that the situation would have escalated like that if it the police handled it better; and that’s more than their job, it’s a moral obligation, because they have tasers and the students don’t. But, whatever the truth is, I predict that the public outrage will determine the outcome, for better or worse.

# 61 James said, on November 16th, 2006 at 2:23 pm

I second acree here. The race element is pretty key to creating the public outrage that will lead this story into the NYTimes. God, I love the NYTimes.

# 62 David said, on November 16th, 2006 at 2:27 pm

#60 It is digusting, but not surprising. There are always people who can justify obscene acts in their own minds as a means of willful self-ignorance.

Of course, it’s inevitable that somewhere, sometime police are going to abuse their power. People who want to believe it doesn’t or won’t happen are living in a fantasy world. And that’s why the populace needs to be armed, for those rare instances.

And what I find even more amazing is that the officers involved were not put on leave immediately.

# 63 Captain Wesker said, on November 16th, 2006 at 2:30 pm

I heard about this before I saw the video. At first, I was mad at the cops for overreacting. Now that I’ve seen the tape, the kid got what he deserved. How do you rationalize getting tazered twice instead of taking five minutes to walk back to your dorm and grab your ID card? As soon as the cops showed up, he realized he could make a scene and provoke them. He WANTED to get tazered. If he didn’t, he would have heeded the officers’ EXCESSIVE warnings to get up. Medical condition my ass. Stupidity isn’t a medical condition.

# 64 forrest said, on November 16th, 2006 at 3:10 pm

Alright…this is getting out of hand…

The university is at fault. If you have a rule that requires students to have ID at all times, it would make sense to ask for this ID before a person is permitted to enter the building. This, afterall, would save the grief of “randomly” carding people in the building and kicking those out who do not have proper identification.

How does the university have this rule and enforce it when it does not make it a point to do this check at entrances where students would be entering?

My school had the same rule, except they carded students at the door. The security guard did not let you in if you did not have your university ID and validated for the semester. Seems simple enough doesn’t it…

# 65 Dave said, on November 16th, 2006 at 3:26 pm

2 root causes of the whole thing:

1) Young male under the influence of testosterone who doesn’t know that that most cops are borderline psychotic drama queens in their oh-so-manly paramilitary uniforms with big penis substitutes strapped to their side to whom you MUST always, always, always, say yes sir (m’am)/no sir (m’am).

2) Borderline psychotic drama queens in their oh-so-manly paramilitary uniforms with big penis substitutes strapped to their side under the influence of testosterone who can’t differentiate between college kids and turrurrists.

Unfortunately, it’s a waste of time to discuss this because everyone involved the situation is obviously an idiot. They did exactly what idoits do. THEY ACTED LIKE IDIOTS. Go figure.

To gquaglia and his ilk:
Please. What planet are you on? Apparently your home world contains no corruption or mental illness. Never you mind that literally half (at least in Ft. Lauderdale) of those fuckers are hopelessly corrupt and way past the borderline phase of psychosis. The only time we’ve ever needed them around here, it took them 45 minutes to get here and they were completely useless assholes when they did get here. Maybe we should have told them that there was a college kid here without an ID. Apparently they would have rushed right over.

# 66 Dave said, on November 16th, 2006 at 3:26 pm

2 root causes of the whole thing:

Unfortunately, it’s a waste of time to discuss this because everyone involved the situation is obviously an idiot. They did exactly what idoits do. THEY ACTED LIKE IDIOTS. Go figure.

# 67 joe said, on November 16th, 2006 at 3:30 pm

your an idiot

the library can be used by anyone without school ID Its after 11pm that ID is required (when Incident happened) to allow only student Staff & faculty in the library. Your also required to have ID in the dorms and on campus in general. i went to UCLA and always had my ID with me. when I stayed at friends places in the dorms I needed to have school ID if I stayed past 11. Hell you can’t even enter the dorms without swiping your ID card to get in. and as for the cops over reacting. that little piece of shit could have avoided all this by simply:

LISTENING TO THE CTO GETTING UP AND LEAVING without causing a problem. But no, he had to be a smart ass and escalate the problem Hes not a freshman he knows the rules and has gone to the library to study there before.

# 68 Sundog said, on November 16th, 2006 at 3:34 pm

None of this would’ve happened if we all had an RFID chip in us. The monitor could have scanned the student, without disturbing him, and everybody would be happy, see? The chip is good, take the chip, its for your safety, it fights terroism. Take the chip, take it, I TELL YOU.

# 69 Joe said, on November 16th, 2006 at 3:38 pm

also, the school ID crap was started because a freshman girl was raped in the dorms a couple years back. The 2 black high school kids from the area got into the dorms simply by walking in behind some other kids that held the door for them to enter. Another reason to carry UCLA ID with you at all times Westwood is so expensive that certain places give you discounts if you show the card

he should gotten up, walked out of powell, and gone home or hung out at a friends place

# 70 Abram Nichols said, on November 16th, 2006 at 3:40 pm

Hey, as long as these people aren’t being tortured, and we don’t have the military running the country, then we’re in pretty good shape, right? Right..?

# 71 Phil said, on November 16th, 2006 at 3:53 pm

That was awesome! That guy was a dumbass. Maybe he will consider using proper behavior next time.

# 72 James said, on November 16th, 2006 at 4:09 pm

What happened to litterally throwing people out when they do this? Surely the cops could have picked his ass up and tossed him out the door. He might wind up with a bruise on his ass from the landing but thats a hell of a lot lighter than a tazer. Plus it’s a lot funnier.

But regardless of all that crap, the cops are legally required to provide names and badge numbers when requested. Refusal to do so should result in quite a punishment, specifically when threatening (warning whatever) the person just for asking. That cop is screw-diddly-ewed.

# 73 CaptainIdiot said, on November 16th, 2006 at 4:14 pm

Hey kiddos. Don’t forget your library cards or you will be put to death by the Bruin Police force.

# 74 RBG said, on November 16th, 2006 at 4:15 pm

73. As much as I’m sure the cop would have liked to stop and give the lady all the ID info requested, as it turned out, he was a little busy at the time. Such a request is like asking for insurance details after a fender-bender in the middle of a bridge.

RBG

# 75 Mr. Fusion said, on November 16th, 2006 at 4:16 pm

gq, I know you are going to argue that when the police tell you to do something, he must obey. Can you cite me a statute law that require free citizens to obey police commands? Can you cite a court ruling that states police may beat, tazer, or pepper spray you if you disobey them?

In other words, to assault someone who is not a danger to people or property is a crime.

# 76 RBG said, on November 16th, 2006 at 4:21 pm

70. Not to mention for reasons of people like me who used to sneak into UCLA classes other than the ones I was authorized for.

RBG

# 77 James said, on November 16th, 2006 at 5:00 pm

75. They should have their numbers memorized, and being 4 digits usually it takes all of 2 seconds to say it. Seriously, it would have been faster to say 4139 rather than “don’t make me taze you”. Thats not a valid excuse.

# 78 Vic said, on November 16th, 2006 at 5:12 pm

Just another day in the police state.
Get used to it . This is nothing compared to whats coming.

# 79 David said, on November 16th, 2006 at 5:24 pm

There is a follow-up article on video posted on the Daily Bruin.

http://dailybruin.com/news/articles.asp?id=38960

From the article:
“But according to a study published in the Lancet Medical Journal in 2001, a charge of three to five seconds can result in immobilization for five to 15 minutes, which would mean that Tabatabainejad could have been physically unable to stand when the officers demanded that he do so. ”

Shouldn’t officers trained for tazer use be familiar with the physical effects of a tazer charge?

# 80 jd said, on November 16th, 2006 at 5:32 pm

Okay, I just saw this.

Now, here’s the deal. I run a computer lab at a university. This is so poorly handled on every level I don’t even have words for it. This is a kid the faculty, staff, and administration are responsible for…and he just got tazered for not having his student ID. No matter how you spin that my stomach turns. Look him up in the system, check it against his driver’s license, ask for his name and turn him for violation of the student code, or maybe just maybe ask why he’s resisting you in identifying himself. When all of these fail…then consider calling security.

I wasn’t there, but if I had been…I hope I would have had the presence of mind to step up and indicate to the officers in question that the situation had gone beyond their control and could we find a way to end it non-violently by getting him to a location outside the building where he could recover and the situation could be reassessed before it became a riot. Further, I hope I would have demanded to be taken with him to ensure his safe arrival at the detention facility where I could ensure that he was assessed for injuries.

Why would I do these things?

Because this is a kid…whom I’m responsible for. No matter how you cut it, if I let this happen to him and he dies or is seriously injured I get to tell his parents “Yeah, I wish I had done something more. I’m sorry, I should have done or said something.” I can’t live with that and I hope most of you couldn’t either.

Hopefully the collegiate community sees this and reacts with the appropriate level of criticism. Libraries were once considered the local bastions of democracy, liberty, and higher thinking. Universities are supposed to be places of discussion and thoughtful action. Were any of these core values considered when a kid was tazered for a simple issue of procedure or poor judgment? Are those ideas not big enough to survive someone who doesn’t always do things the way you want them to?

God, I hope not.

# 81 Robert said, on November 16th, 2006 at 5:42 pm

It astounds and troubles me that, in the face of such appalling and obvious brutality, there are posts everywhere arguing that this fellow somehow deserved this treatment. The dark side of the American character is certainly evident in the reactions to this incident. There is very little difference in degree between his offence and a parking infraction and it very hard to imagine what danger he was presenting to the public. I suspect he was being a jerk, but almost everyone is capable of that in the right circumstance. I am beginning to thank that here is no degree of officlal violence in the US which would meet with overwhelming condemnation.

# 82 Sundog said, on November 16th, 2006 at 6:00 pm

jd- I would send my kid to your school, that is the most level headed response yet.

# 83 Gene Miller said, on November 16th, 2006 at 6:41 pm

F8ck the po-lice.

These cops are arrogant pricks, and I hope there’s a nice tazer room in Hell for them to enjoy.

Tazering is meant for those who pose a significant threat to law enforcement, not for unarmed students without an I.D. Those who condone this kind of crap are as guilty as the cops in the video who did it.

# 84 Gary Marks said, on November 16th, 2006 at 6:44 pm

I remember the good old days when we only got tazered once for not having our student ID. I guess they’re more strict now.

# 85 gquaglia said, on November 16th, 2006 at 7:26 pm

In other words, to assault someone who is not a danger to people or property is a crime.

Why yes I can. In NJ there is a statute called obstruction of Justice:

2C:29-1. Obstructing Administration of Law or Other Governmental Function. a. A
person commits an offense if he purposely obstructs, impairs or perverts the administration of
law or other governmental function or prevents or attempts to prevent a public servant from
lawfully performing an official function by means of 1[flight,]1 2flight,2 intimidation, force,
violence, or physical interference or obstacle, or by means of any independently unlawful act.
This section does not apply to [flight by a person charged with crime, refusal to submit to arrest,]
failure to perform a legal duty other than an official duty, or any other means of avoiding
compliance with law without affirmative interference with governmental functions.

I’m sure California has a similar law. They were called there for trespassing, the suspect refused to stop and be identified. He was restrained, he resisted and the police use a level of force needed to make the arrest. Case closed. All your arm chair liberals can argue all you liked. No law was broken here. I can only guess from the negative posts here that many have had run ins in the law in the past and that you no longer have a objective opinion on the matter.

# 86 Winston said, on November 16th, 2006 at 7:26 pm

Listening to the kid scream made me sick to my stomach. How someone could stand there tazering someone like that is beyond me…

# 87 bac said, on November 16th, 2006 at 7:34 pm

The student’s crime is not having an ID and the punishment is assault. I suppose if I do not have my drivers license on hand then my punishment should be assault. Has anyone that has posted here, forgot to have money, ID, keys, cell phone or any other item on hand in their entire life? Does anyone know why the student didn’t have his ID with him?

The person performing the random ID checks should have just told the student that the next time he visits the place to be sure to have ID on hand.

# 88 jd said, on November 16th, 2006 at 7:40 pm

Okay gquaglia…we’re a bunch a of criminals. I’ve never had worse than a court date for an accident. No blemish on my record.

Some of the people I respect most are police officers. Hence the approach I espoused above about trying to intervene and prevent injury to the student, the officers, and the crowd by defusing the situation.

However, as a University employee this is a kid, a student in a place he should be safe in…and he wasn’t. Instead he got tazered. Doesn’t that bother you on some level? If he were your brother or nephew or friend would you feel different. This isn’t a liberal argument…its a human one. This could have been handled better and any officer of any court or any member of any academic administration will agree with that. All they’ve done is prove to a room full of young people they can’t trust someone in uniform not to swagger in and abuse them. This undermines authority instead of endorsing it. The true test of leadership is the grace to defuse the nightmare situation, the presence of mind for mercy, and the capability to step back emotionally and evaluate one’s options appropriately. I didn’t see evidence of that in this video in th slightest.

You may be right that the letter of the law protects the officers in this case, I don’t know…but thats a different thing than what happened in this instance being right.

# 89 vemrion said, on November 16th, 2006 at 7:44 pm

The cops’ mindset is the scariest thing. It seems to be that “authority must be obeyed at all times, no matter what.” That is not consistent with the student’s constitutionally protected rights, which place his inalienable rights far above any sort of convenience achieved by granting limited authority to officers of the peace.

I’m sure it would be much more convenient to give police officers unlimited power to use and abuse as they saw fit, but such an arrangement is totally incompatible with the concepts of freedom and liberty for which our forefathers fought and died. Freedom is far more important than being quiet in a library or being cooperative with police.

# 90 joshua said, on November 16th, 2006 at 8:27 pm

#86…gquaglia….I’m an arm chair Conservative…..your wrong on so many levels.
All of the witnesses state that the guy was leaving when the cops(and they ARE cops) arrived. They stopped him, and one grabbed him after he said clearly that he was leaving. He told the cop to let him go, and then another grabbed him and held him, thats when he went limp(standard protest procedure, taught in protesting 101). the cops told him to stand or be tasered, he didn’t, and he added **fuck you**, they tasered(at this point 3 experts on KTLA news stated that he wouldn’t have been able to stand on his own), all of this is on one of what is 9 tapings of this event so far. When they told him they would taser him again or stand, other students tried to get them to just remove him, several asked for the officers badge numbers(UCLA campus police policy is to give your badge number when asked by ANYONE), the officer threatened to taser one girl who asked or anyone else if they didn’t back off.
At no time did the officers ask him for ID….no one had asked for ID since the CSO had earlier. At no time did any responsable adult member of staff attempt to intervene and de-escatle the situation.
The guy was tasered twice in the computor lab and once more in the entrance vestabule, he was screaming in pain each time, there were 4 officers, but apparently they couldn’t just haul the guy up and carry him outside.
My old Ethics in Law Prof. is a member of the UCLA faculty and said these men will be fired, that what they did was way beyond the accepted way of doing things, even if the guy had been actively resisting. Apparently not only were the homemade video’s damning, but so is the computor labs survailance tapes.

I know that some here thing conservatives are hard liners, but thats not true, real conservatives will always be on the side of those whose constitutional rights have been violated, as this guys were.

He was guilty of being Arab without student ID, and nothing more apparently.

# 91 Ascii King said, on November 16th, 2006 at 8:30 pm

I haven’t heard one single reasonable argument in favour of the student yet. Just a lot of overblown hype and name calling.

Please, try to get the facts straight as well. The student was NOT tasered because he didn’t have his ID. He was asked to leave by library security because he didn’t have his ID.

Library security called the police.

The police came to investigate this incident and found the suspect still on the premises. The suspect then refused to cooperate with the police and tried to leave.

That’s why they tased him and they were very clear about it. They definately COULD have handled it better, but they didn’t have to.

#88, jd your arguments are very compassionate and that’s great, but if you were to step in while the police were getting control of the suspect, you would become part of the problem. I’m not sure what the official stand is on taking extra people along for the ride to jail, but I doubt they do it. Your best bet would have been to not call the police in the first place.

# 92 catbeller said, on November 16th, 2006 at 9:03 pm

There are a lot of nazis in the U.S., and always have been among us. Godwin’s Law is dead, so just let it go. And here they are.

Huey Long said that fascism would come to America, but that we would call it democracy.

Lemme see. We’re supposed to show respect to police? What law would say that?
The man “deserved it”. Under what law?
The cops don’t have to identify themselves to “kids full of themselves”, and can threaten them. Show me the law.
The kid didn’t belong in his own university without ID. I see he was on the dark side… how many white students are tasered, do you think, on the average at UCLA?
The university can set up rules to taser people who don’t show ID. Under what law, exactly?
The police can threaten the population if they feel afraid. Why were they afraid? Were they, oh, doing something wrong? If they can threaten the students, who exactly are they protecting?

There are two types of people. Those who believe in authority and power, and those that believe in people. Jefferson and Adams. Yin, yang. Frat boys and everyone else. Thugs and thinkers.

# 93 RBG said, on November 16th, 2006 at 9:11 pm

78. That may well be but the attention of the cop had better be proved to be 100% on the safety of the guy he’s trying to kill or that dude might have a law suit beyond the one he probably already has plans to launch.

RBG

# 94 RBG said, on November 16th, 2006 at 9:14 pm

87. Because people who actually are suffering that much pain will respond within the first microsecond to avoid more of the same.

RBG

# 95 RBG said, on November 16th, 2006 at 9:27 pm

I don’t believe he couldn’t stand. He sure didn’t say “I can’t stand” while still able to say a lot of other things. Here is the case of a guy just itching for a fight right from the first moment. That said, I still condemn the police as per my #43 and see a lot of fault on both sides. I predict the court case will be dismissed due to trespass laws and the University will change their procedures to avoid a repeat.

RBG

# 96 Spooof said, on November 16th, 2006 at 9:38 pm

The guy was probably being a jerk about the whole thing seeings how he was a student and would have been allowed to say if he had his ID.

I am willing to bet that he will not have to worry about tuition once the sharks get to this.

# 97 OhForTheLoveOf said, on November 16th, 2006 at 10:27 pm

I know the cops are going to be unemployed soon. Here’s hoping they are incarcerated too.

A young student, not cooperative, but not resisting, is tasered four times, and three times it seems in handcuffs… and yet more than half the chowderheads who’ve come out of the woodwork, like cockroaches, to snipe cannot find anything but contempt for this human life. This, despite having no first hand knowledge whatsoever of what actually went down. The only thing that absolutely certain from this video, and the various media reports is that they could have just dragged the kid out peacefully, but they’d rather thump a kid.

Mayor Daley would have been proud.
Governor Rhodes would have awarded them a medal.

After seeing all the beatings and killings, almost always of minorities, in this country, at the hands of hamfisted cops, you still herald the ultimate authority of law and order over civility and reason. I guess you gotta break a few eggs to make an omlette, huh?

I guess it’s stupid to argue at this point. The cooler, smarter minds have tried but the jackboots are cheerleading the goon squad, and they’ll sure not tolerate an uppity Arab.

# 98 Zuke said, on November 16th, 2006 at 10:55 pm

WTF does getting tazed in a library have to do with the fricken Patriot Act? Guy sounded like a jerk. A**hat made ME want to taze him! Nobody ever gets on film what provoked the cops in the 1st place, only the response.

# 99 RBG said, on November 16th, 2006 at 11:03 pm

80. Does that Lancet Medical Journal in 2001say whether the Taser was tested in dart-mode or drive-stun mode? Because there is a big difference in the stun power. For example, the wider the distance the darts hits a body, the more powerful the effect. Drive-stun has electrodes always the minimal distance apart.

From the Palm Beach Post, an article critical of Taser use:
http://tinyurl.com/j8vxw
includes the following re drive-stun mode:

“The Taser training manual advises that because it is not incapacitating, this mode can lead to “prolonged struggles” and that “it is in these types of scenarios that officers are often facing accusations of excessive force.”"

“Even in its paralyzing mode, one shock may not be enough to subdue a violent suspect, according to the Taser training manual, which advises that officers “should anticipate a second or third application.”"

RBG

# 100 Mr. Fusion said, on November 16th, 2006 at 11:24 pm

#86, gq,

You cite the law on Obstruction of Justice. Now cite a law that states citizens are required to obey police officers. Then, can you cite the law that allows police to beat, tazer, or pepper spray someone if you disobey. Can’t find one? That is because there isn’t one.

FYI, they didn’t even charge him with trespassing. They charged him with obstructing police, a charge that will not stick. Why? Because he is not required to identify himself. The police may apprehend him but once they have IDed him, they would no longer to have any reason to hold him. The Supreme Court said the police may detain someone for identity, but there isn’t a charge for someone who doesn’t give their ID. But from the NJ statute, the cop that refused to identify himself sounds like he should also be charged with obstruction.

You are wrong on so many levels. Ask the cops charged with beating Rodney King. Police policy is not a defense to assault.

# 101 tallwookie said, on November 17th, 2006 at 12:48 am

ya know, there a lot of people in power who want to monitor the populace because of the hidden “terror” element (aka govt doesnt trust its people) – and while the justification for that is debateable, it appears that there will have to be a distinct change in thought of those who practice it.

aka you’ll see a lot more abuse of power by the police in the future, not because it happens more and more (it always happening), but because of more passive electronic monitoring.

***

I say we find these cops and do what the S. Koreans do and deride them so much that they become public scapegoats, and then they’ll quietly kill themselves in shame, and fade from the public radar.

# 102 Juan Cardona said, on November 17th, 2006 at 1:00 am

It doesn’t matter if the guy with the weapon is right or not, if he is a cop or not. Common sense dictates you should do as he says because the risk of him just losing his cool and shooting you is just not worth it in most situations, and the only think at stake here was the student’s pride. You never know beforehand if you are dealing with a jerk with a gun and a swollen head or someone with common sense and true undestanding of the limits of his/her authority and duty. Better to run and fight other day than to be potentially killed for petty things.

# 103 Adam said, on November 17th, 2006 at 1:54 am

#101 “Now cite a law that states citizens are required to obey police officers. Then, can you cite the law that allows police to beat, tazer, or pepper spray someone if you disobey.”

Okay, I’ll bite.

HIIBEL v. SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF NEVADA

The officer approached the man and explained that he was investigating a report of a fight. The man appeared to be intoxicated. The officer asked him if he had “any identification on [him],” which we understand as a request to produce a driver’s license or some other form of written identification. The man refused and asked why the officer wanted to see identification. The officer responded that he was conducting an investigation and needed to see some identification. The unidentified man became agitated and insisted he had done nothing wrong. The officer explained that he wanted to find out who the man was and what he was doing there. After continued refusals to comply with the officer’s request for identification, the man began to taunt the officer by placing his hands behind his back and telling the officer to arrest him and take him to jail. This routine kept up for several minutes: the officer asked for identification 11 times and was refused each time. After warning the man that he would be arrested if he continued to refuse to comply, the officer placed him under arrest.

We now know that the man arrested on Grass Valley Road is Larry Dudley Hiibel. Hiibel was charged with “willfully resist[ing], delay[ing], or obstruct[ing] a public officer in discharging or attempting to discharge any legal duty of his office” in violation of Nev. Rev. Stat. (NRS) §199.280 (2003). The government reasoned that Hiibel had obstructed the officer in carrying out his duties under §171.123, a Nevada statute that defines the legal rights and duties of a police officer in the context of an investigative stop. Section 171.123 provides in relevant part:

“1. Any peace officer may detain any person whom the officer encounters under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime.

. . . . .

“3. The officer may detain the person pursuant to this section only to ascertain his identity and the suspicious circumstances surrounding his presence abroad. Any person so detained shall identify himself, but may not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of any peace officer.”

The conviction was affirmed.

GRAHAM v. CONNOR

Fourth Amendment jurisprudence has long recognized that the right to make an arrest or investigatory stop necessarily carries with it the right to use some degree of physical coercion or threat thereof to effect it.

STATE v. PAUL HURTEAU

It is a well-developed principle that in making an arrest an officer has the right to use the amount of force that is necessary to properly perform his duty.

VANVOROUS v. BURMEISTER

A police officer may use reasonable force in making an arrest. Reasonably necessary force is that which an ordinarily prudent and intelligent person, with the knowledge and in the situation of the arresting officer, would have deemed necessary.

I wasn’t there and the video isn’t much help (where have I heard that before) so I can’t say if the force was reasonable in this case, but certainly I can see situations where a taser or pepper spray are reasonable use of force.

# 104 Gregg said, on November 17th, 2006 at 4:17 am

Send these “police” your comments. Here’s the chiefs email address:
Chief of Police,
Karl T. Ross
825-1633
kross@ucpd.ucla.edu

# 105 Ascii King said, on November 17th, 2006 at 5:21 am

Anyone who asks to be shown the law that says “blah blah blah” is just lazy. They are the type of people who think themselves really smart, but don’t actually add anything to the conversation. What’s more, is even if you show these people the laws they have asked to see, they will still not agree with you. Though I do appreciate your post, Adam. It makes it very clear.

I will also repeat that every argument in favour of that kids actions has been nothing but name calling or challenges like “show me the law…”. Nothing real. OhForTheLoveOf even stooped so low as to say anyone who agrees with the cops is a racist.

Fuck you, OhForTheLoveOf. Tell me what race I am before you call me racist against Arabs.

# 106 Marc said, on November 17th, 2006 at 5:37 am

The police were absolutely correct in how they handled the situation. People need to learn to obey authority. If he was a student he had no right to be in the building without ID. This is protects all the students and staff. I can’t stand when people think they can just do what ever they want without consequences.

# 107 Venom Monger said, on November 17th, 2006 at 5:57 am

It’s hilarious how all these police lovers, who have never posted before, come out of the woodwork to agree with each other on these sorts of issues. It’s pretty obvious that one of these losers, Ascii King maybe, logs on under 20 different names to support himself.

# 108 James Fletcher said, on November 17th, 2006 at 6:16 am

I’m a producer for the BBC’s global discussion radio programme World Have Your Say. We want to talk about this incident on our show tonight (on air at 1800GMT / 1300ET / 1000PST ).

What do you think about this incident? Were you there, can you tell us what happened? Have you witnessed tazers used somewhere else?

If you’re interested to talk to us about coming on the programme, you can:

call: +44 207 557 0635
email: worldhaveyoursay@bbc.co.uk with your number and we’ll call you back
Or contact us here to find out more about the programme

Thanks, James

# 109 Mucous said, on November 17th, 2006 at 6:24 am

The kids are stupid and full of themselves. The cops overreacted and are full of themselves. This is UCLA. How can any sane person see anything wrong with simply setting off a nuke in the center of campus? What would be lost? What could possibly be worth saving there?

# 110 Mr. Fusion said, on November 17th, 2006 at 7:10 am

#104, Hiibel doesn’t help. The man was intoxicated and asked to be arrested, so he was.

Graham doesn’t count, apparently this student was not told he was under arrest. Even if he was, the force may only be to the degree required. A restrained prisoner poses minimal risk at worse and there has been no evidence suggesting he was a danger. Passive resistance is not impeding or obstructing the police. It might not make their job easier, but it isn’t obstruction.

Hurteau is correct. But they do not have any authority to use excessive force, or indeed any force more then required.

Vanvorous, says exactly the same thing.

Ok, some fuzzy decisions, I notice you cited the the jurisdiction on only one case, so I have no idea if the other cases are valid, have been overturned, the minority decision was quoted, etc.

The argument isn’t whether or not he needs to identify himself. That is a given. The discussion is whether the use of force fit the crime.

# 111 forrest said, on November 17th, 2006 at 7:14 am

#68 #70 joe

Actually…you’re the idiot…it does not matter what time it is, if the building is open, that means there are people working in it still. It does not take much effort and ability to check for student ID at libraries and computer labs prior to admission.

Also, you’re argument is flawed. What does a freshman girl being raped in the dorms have anything to do with having proper identification at the library? It was unfortunate that the incident occurred, but having your ID on you at all times would have prevented it how? As you said, the assailants were allowed in by other students holding the door open for them. So…who would have checked them for ID? You make it seem like attending students are incapable of rape either…

And yes, I also dormed as well and am very familiar with having the magnetic swipe on entrance doors. It’s not a perfect system and there are many ways around it. As I said before, a better system would be to having security check for ID prior to allowing person(s) into the building. It’s not very difficult, but it’s a lot more effective then the removal process of someone from the premises if they cannot provide identification.

The university lost total control of this situation. And the tazer should only be used when there is a reasonable threat. A disrespectful, cocky-ass student whom is refusing to give identification is not exactly a reasonable threat to the police officers or to others around him.

# 112 Mr. Fusion said, on November 17th, 2006 at 7:15 am

People need to learn to obey authority. …
I can’t stand when people think they can just do what ever they want without consequences.
Comment by Marc — 11/17/2006 @ 5:37 am

This is the kind of police state that voters voted against in the mid-term elections. Those that advocate such a position have been removed from power. Well, except for the wannabe dictator, and he has a lot of explaining to do.

You are correct. The police will now have to face the consequences. So will the University.

# 113 James Hill said, on November 17th, 2006 at 7:23 am

#6 – Only a moron would think a two or four year degree directly relates to intelligence, especially in this case.

This thread is hot for some reason… I’m guessing liberals who think this story has to do something with the national elections (see #113). Nice stretch.

# 114 J said, on November 17th, 2006 at 7:51 am

#104 Adam

All of the cases you cite do not answer the question “can you cite the law that allows police to beat, tazer, or pepper spray someone if you disobey”

The cases you cite all involve reasonable suspicion that a crime was either in commission or had been committed. Not just blatant “YOU MUST OBEY A POLICE OFFICER AT ALL TIMES” in you first case the man was publicly intoxicated. In your last case there was a car chase and at one point an officers life was directly in danger.

I applaud your ability to cite case law but you totally missed the point of that previous posts question.

Your case law does properly address whether or not the police used reasonable force. I am not sure they did in this case but you did show proper case law in their defense.

How does all of this apply?

Well…… A police officer does not have the law to just tazer or pepper spray you for just simply disobeying them. They must have suspicion that you committed a crime or a crime is in process by you at that moment. Not obeying them does not qualify as commiting a crime! If you interfere with their duty of upholding the law you are technically in obstruction of justice and open for a good shock.

BUT

Lets say even an uninformed officer tells you and your naked girl friend to make snow angels. You do not have to OBEY that officer because he is not in the process of upholding the law. Not because he is uninformed but because he is not upholding the law.

http://tinyurl.com/yaytu9

# 115 Gregory said, on November 17th, 2006 at 8:41 am

So – to sum up:

1) The student was leaving when cops arrive, just like he had been asked.
2) The cops detained him for no reason.
3) The kids then acted a bit like a dick.
4) The cops went nuts and tazered him – which is not reasonable force when said kid is just sitting down.
5) The other kids around when “OMG WTF??!”
6) Kid starts screaming and shouting, including something rather irrelevant (technically anyhow, not philosophically) about the patriot act.
6) Cops tazer the kid again because he can’t get up most likley because he was just tazered.
7) Kids ask for badge ID of cop, cop reacts with threats.

Basically – the cops overreacted completely. They should be fired. The kid should use it as a learning experience (don’t act aggressive to large men with weapons – you’ll get fucked up), and there should be adjustments to the attitude of both students and cops.

But anyone who defends the cops here is just wrong. There is no way you can characterize it as “reasonable force”, and none of the legal arguments GG or Adam have put forward apply because they either are inapplicable (he wasn’t obstructing them until THEY tazered him) or are actually in support of the kid (they didn’t use reasonable force).

I say: bring on the mass student protests.

# 116 Earl said, on November 17th, 2006 at 8:59 am

A textbook-perfect example of police procedure. The loquacious little twerp was given every chance to obey a reasonable request, and received exactly what could be expected by disobeying it. He’s entitled to “speak truth to power”, but he’s gonna meet Mr. Capacitor as a result. What a whiny little putz.

# 117 SN said, on November 17th, 2006 at 9:13 am

#117 “The loquacious little twerp was given every chance to obey a reasonable request…”

I’ll say it again. You’re a cop and you want someone to leave an area. Do you….

A: Let him leave or

B: Do you grab his arm, refuse to let him go, then tazer him. And then when he’s on the floor requesting medical help, tazer him again.

Exactly what method I described above is the best means of getting someone out of an area? Thanks!

# 118 RBG said, on November 17th, 2006 at 9:23 am

115. The suspicion was that he committed the crime or the crime was in process by him at that moment of trespass.

RBG

# 119 Ascii King said, on November 17th, 2006 at 9:24 am

Adam do you see now why I say it’s a waste of time to hunt up the laws when they ask for them? All they ever do is deny what you give them and ask for more. They are too lazy to think.

Sorry #115 J and #116 but you are both wrong in assuming the kid had done nothing. And for the last time, the police didn’t want him to leave, security did. The police were there investigating a crime because they were called.

The kid was committing a crime. He was trespassing. The school decided to use the police to enforce their rule. They later dropped the charges after the whole thing became a big deal. Since the kid was trespassing and the officers were there to investigate the incident of trespassing, the kid was obstructing justice by refusing to answer the questions. Same as the example Adam posted.

The kid did not passively resist the police. He started to shout “Get off me.” as soon as they grabbed him. A suspect in an investigation does not have the right to decide if he wants to be touched or not, the police do. The kid became passive after they hit him with the Taser.

The police Could have handled it differently, but they did not break any laws handling it the way they did. The argument is not whether it was reasonable force or not, the argument is whether the police were breaking the law or not by using the Taser on him.

If the use of the Taser in that situation is against the law, then they are indeed the thugs you claim them to be.

As for the racial profiling, I am a firm believer that that sort of thing happens all the time. However, in this case it was not the police who did the racial profiling, but the local security guard that went around checking for ID. Also, if the students WEAR their ID, like a nametag type thing, then it would be easy to see who isn’t wearing one and ask them to show it. It seems it would be hard to prove racial profiling in a case like this unless the students don’t wear the ID AND the security guard only asked brown people to prove they were students.

# 120 Tom 2 said, on November 17th, 2006 at 9:28 am

UCLA has now dropped a few 1000 places down the “someday I’d like to go to that university” list.

# 121 SN said, on November 17th, 2006 at 9:32 am

#119: “trespass”

Trespass?! The student was a STUDENT. God how hard is that to understand?! He paid money to attend the school. The school rule merely states that “Students should carry” carry their IDs. The rule does not say that students “shall” or “must” carry them! See #29.

Exactly how does not having a student ID make him a trespasser?!

# 122 J said, on November 17th, 2006 at 9:34 am

#119 RGB

Oh I agree with you on that for sure assuming we have the whole story.

#120 Asccii King

I didn’t assume anything From the details I have think they had every right to detain him. Again, assuming we have the whole story.

Just so you know I referenced all of those cases and they do not apply to the fact that a police officer must be obeyed at all times. There is no such law and posting case law that only applies to reasonable force doesn’t prove otherwise.

# 123 RBG said, on November 17th, 2006 at 9:43 am

121. Yes, you need to go to one of the universities where they don’t care who’s there after 11PM or at least have security people who respond with “None? No problem, have a nice evening” when asking for authenticating ID.

RBG

# 124 RBG said, on November 17th, 2006 at 9:47 am

122. Try forcing your way in, or even calmly walking into a football game or a concert without the ticket you bought to understand how this works.

RBG

# 125 RBG said, on November 17th, 2006 at 10:02 am

112. No one can enforce a rule that a student “must” carry an ID card, only that they “should” carry one should they wish all the priviledges and access that the card can offer.

RBG

# 126 RBG said, on November 17th, 2006 at 10:21 am

0. Update: I smell troll. Like you believe all mental patients are the benign Jack Nicholson type. The real irony is your belief that your comment somehow diminishes the cop’s Tazer training and response.

Update 2: Well knock me over with a feather. You missed that the guy was also charging the cops with eating donuts without a license.

RBG

# 127 JimR said, on November 17th, 2006 at 10:36 am

Um… SN…. #29 that was my post. and I also quoted UCLA security regulations: “Any unauthorized person(s) will be removed from the center and/or charged with trespassing.

Security asked him to leave and he didn’t. There must have been a refusal to leave or the request was ignored. There was also a time interval between when he was asked (and he didn’t comply) and when the police arrived. So he had no intention on leaving on anyone’s terms but his own.

This kid is a self centered brat. Do you honestly want kids like that calling the shots at university? Would you send your kid to a university that allowed kids to ignore orderly conduct and safty regulations? Okay, I admit hat the tazer was a bit much, but it was either that or to get physical with him. I bet it’s standard policy to resort to a tazer in a difficult apprehension… and they gave him a choice. He CHOSE the tazer.

# 128 Ascii King said, on November 17th, 2006 at 10:39 am

#123, J you are trying to argue a point that none of the reasonable people here are making. I do not expect someone to blindly obey every order given to them by a police officer. If, however an officer is investigating a crime, which they were, and you are questioned, you are required to stop and give at least your name. You do not have to give any other info, but the cop also has the right to take you to the station. If the cop is questioning you, you do not have the right to leave.

SN, how is it that you are a moderator on this blog? Are you 10 years old or something? It doesn’t matter if the kid was a student. It also doesn’t matter if he had his ID or not. If the school decides that the student is no longer welcome on the school grounds, he is a trespasser and they can call the cops on him. A reasonable cop would say that since the trespasser was formerly allowed on the premises, it would be unreasonable to charge them with any crime and just ask them to leave.

In this particular situation, the police never got the chance to assess the identity of the trespasser because the trespasser refused to give his name as he is required to do by law. He made it worse by trying to ignore the police and leave.

The cops were not trying to get him to leave, SN, they were trying to investigate a crime.

# 129 jtoso said, on November 17th, 2006 at 10:43 am

**This is speculation**
The cops should win this one. The kid didn’t want to leave because he thought he was being profiled…Not smart. I’m guessing he thought he would look brave or something. You have to do what a cop tells you even if you think is wrong. They are the law. If he thought it was wrong, he could have just brought it up to the school board or the officers captain or chief. Filed a complaint. If you are told to leave or get out of your car or whatever by a cop, do it without delay. If you procrastinate, it is a sign that you are doing something wrong… I know that is taught in POT (peace officers training). This is speculation, because I don’t know what he said exactly to the cops when asked to leave. I am assuming that he said he wouldn’t leave right away. The video does not start until after words were exchanged about him leaving. Need another video or recording of the first few sentences for any of us to make a real judgment.

# 130 SN said, on November 17th, 2006 at 10:50 am

““Any unauthorized person(s) will be removed from the center and/or charged with trespassing.”

As far as I know, the UCLA does not enact criminal statutes. They can say anything they want about what they think the law is, but that does not make it the law.

My point is that under the law the student was not trespassing. The fact that he was not charged with trespassing only backs up my point.

# 131 Ascii King said, on November 17th, 2006 at 10:50 am

You are misunderstanding the situation jtoso. The cops did not profile him or ask him to leave. A security guard, referred to as a “civilian officer” in the statement made by the police chief, carded the student and asked him to leave. The security guard or Library Security person was the first contact and that person called the police. The real police are the people we see in the video.

# 132 Ascii King said, on November 17th, 2006 at 10:56 am

He was trespassing. If the owner of the property no longer wants you there and you do not leave, then you are trespassing. Even if you were invited there in the first place. Even if you paid for the right to be there.

# 133 J said, on November 17th, 2006 at 10:57 am

#129

“J you are trying to argue a point that none of the reasonable people here are making”

In #104 Adam responded to post #101 and he presented case law that doesn’t apply. That’s all I am saying. Some people here think that the police have absolute authority. They do not. Some people think that they have to obey a police officer at all times. They do not. Some people questioned that. They asked for a law that shows that because they knew it didn’t exist. Adam tried to cite case law to defend that position that you must obey the police or else. He was wrong!

“If, however an officer is investigating a crime, which they were, and you are questioned, you are required to stop and give at least your name”

Not unless you are suspect of that crime. Which in this case he was. but if I were there and stopped having nothing to do with the matter I would say “Am I a suspect? If not am I free to go?” I would not give my name I would not show ID until they told me I was a suspect. I would be well within my rights. If the cop said you can go once you tell me your name I would say ” no, am I under arrest? If not I am leaving”

” If the cop is questioning you, you do not have the right to leave.”

Yes you do unless they place you under arrest. Is it wise to just walk away? No. A lot of cops have an authority complex and will put the beat down on you for disrespect.

# 134 Matt H said, on November 17th, 2006 at 11:03 am

I’ve been in law enforcement for going on ten years, and the biggest mistake the police made was seeing things in black and white.

Nothing in le is black and white, they should have been operating with shades of gray. Here’s a link to one of the use of force models: http://www.batons.com/mptc/uof2.html

I mean, for christs sake, this was all over a college kid who didn’t have ID at a library. Police went there with the wrong perception of events or something…god what an embarassment.

Not every call is for a high profile collar.

# 135 jtoso said, on November 17th, 2006 at 11:06 am

“You are misunderstanding the situation jtoso. The cops did not profile him or ask him to leave. A security guard, referred to as a “civilian officer” in the statement made by the police chief, carded the student and asked him to leave. The security guard or Library Security person was the first contact and that person called the police. The real police are the people we see in the video.”

I see. Either way the cops should win the case.

# 136 Olo Baggins of Bywater said, on November 17th, 2006 at 11:16 am

But Matt (135) they got to use their tasers on snotty college kids who scream about their rights and at the same time act like wannabe anarchists. How cool was that?

Seriously though, how many episodes of Cops do they have to watch before they figure out how to play The Cop Game?

I fight authority, authority always wins.
So I call up my preacher
I say: gimme strenght for round 5
He said: you dont need no strength, you need to grow up, son
I said: growing up leads to growing old and then to dying,
And dying to me dont sound like all that much fun

# 137 forrest said, on November 17th, 2006 at 11:19 am

#126 RBG

I agree with you. No one can enforce a student must having to carry ID. Just that the student must present proper ID in order to enter and use campus facilities…

# 138 SN said, on November 17th, 2006 at 11:37 am

“If the owner of the property no longer wants you there and you do not leave, then you are trespassing.”

I’m sorry, I’ll have to watch the video again. Next time I watch I’ll be extra careful to see the owner of the UCLA tell him, “I don’t want you here.”

And if he is guilty of trespassing, why didn’t they charge him with it?! Could it be because he is a student there and has a right to be there?! Mmm….

# 139 Ascii King said, on November 17th, 2006 at 11:47 am

See? That’s the 10 year old I’m talking about. Of course the owner of the UCLA didn’t ask him to leave personally. You knoiw as well as I do that they have rules in place so that the owners don’t have to be there.

Why they didn’t charge him with trespassing is a different matter. Maybe the UCLA dropped the charges or just asked the police to make him leave. Did you read post #29 above that clearly points out the student was trespassing?

# 140 RBG said, on November 17th, 2006 at 11:52 am

135. Definite agreement on that from me.

139. Make sure you also watch the video of Security telling him “I don’t want you here.”

After investigating, the cops and security determined he wasn’t a threat.

All of which makes me wonder if it is a practical solution for security people to have easy access to pictures and names of registered students.

RBG

# 141 JimR said, on November 17th, 2006 at 12:11 pm

OK, time for me to eat crow. I just looked through the California Penal code as it pertains to trespassers on university property and you have to show damage or interference with school activities. SN, I concede to you.

# 142 Vinny said, on November 17th, 2006 at 12:59 pm

I’m no expert, but I wonder how, as a peace officer, you can use force when you haven’t discovered a ‘clear and present danger’ or an illegal act. Was he notified that he was trespassing? Was he told that if he refused to leave he would be arrested? Once he was tazed, why was he not cuffed and removed?

Unless that guy was as big as a house, one tazing and the cuffs should have been it.

Then again, if they had cuffed him, they wouldn’t be allowed to taze him again, as that be cruel and unusual. By not cuffing him, they got to play with their toys, and really torture him because he pissed them off.

I don’t care what the circumstances were. That type of force is only justified in the case of clear danger or truly unusual circumstances. I’d taze a rowdy on a plane, but on the ground, that guy better be rushing me or my buddy. These guys are screwed.

# 143 Ascii King said, on November 17th, 2006 at 1:07 pm

So if the cops weren’t there to investigate a trespasser, then what was their reason? Did the security call up and say “I have someone here that I would like to have charged with an unspecified crime. Please come assault him?”

Perhaps “I have an iranian here who needs a good beating.”

or “I’ve got a student bucking authority here. Please come and teach him some respect.”

I’m sorry JimR, but I don’t see why the cops would even show up if there wasn’t a concern. In any case, though once they are investigating, whatever they were investigating, the kid was still a suspect.

# 144 joshua said, on November 17th, 2006 at 1:53 pm

#143….your so wrong….and grasping at straws isn’t making you look any better.

Maybe the kid was/is an asshole. But being an asshole isn’t a crime.

But assulting a college student for not having his/her ID, and attempting to intimidate and threaten other students who are not committing any crime, will get your sorry ass fired. And a big bill for the tax payers of the State of California.

# 145 Jessica evans said, on November 17th, 2006 at 2:38 pm

the title of this video is wrong. he was tazered at least five times. you should actually watch the video and get other news accounts before declaring that the police “did nothing wrong”. that’s excessive use of force, if i’ve ever seen it.

# 146 Adam said, on November 17th, 2006 at 2:39 pm

#120. Ascii, yes, I know, they’ll always argue against my posts. In a different thread Mr. Fusion even started claiming that I denied there was racism in America just to avoid responding to my points. But I’m not really responding to them, its the rational people who read these threads (the 99.9% that don’t post) who I’m responding to.
#115 “YOU MUST OBEY A POLICE OFFICER AT ALL TIMES”
Very nice straw man you have created there. Of course there’s no law that states you must slit your wrists if a police officer ordered you to, no one claimed there was, but enjoy that burning straw man, it sure is purty.
What I was responding to was “Now cite a law that states citizens are required to obey police officers.” I cited a law that required just that, not in every situation, but a law that does require compliance from citizens in a certain situation. Then Mr. Fusion claims that it doesn’t apply because he asked to be arrested and that he was intoxicated, which makes no sense whatsoever. The man was convicted for “obstruction” not for intoxication, and I wasn’t aware that it was a crime to asked to be arrested. The supreme court upheld his conviction because he didn’t obey the lawful order of a police officer. I don’t know how it can get any clearer than that.
Now, just to clarify, here are the situations where you must obey the order of a police officer or you risk punishment (keep in mind that in no situation are you required to obey an order to do anything illegal):
1) An order to stop you breaking the law (such as to pull over while speeding).
2) An order while you are being arrested (to submit to search, for example).
3) An order to stop you keeping the officer from fulfilling their duty (blocking their car on the road while travelling to an emergency).
4) While performing any other duty assigned by law (like the New Mexico law which requires you to provide identification).
Now, does anyone claim that it is legal to disobey the order of a police officer in any of these circumstances? You are allowed to defend yourself against excessive force during arrest and you don’t have to allow them in your home without a warrant. But in both cases, the police are themselves doing something illegal and they’re no longer doing their duty.
Now, it has been shown, case law, that a police officer is allowed to use reasonable force to enforce any of the orders above, since in every case you are breaking the law and force is sometimes required to enFORCE the law. That doesn’t mean tasering and pepper spraying at random, but there are times that it’s reasonable.
Now, Mr. Fusion, it’s on you. Show me a single case where someone was exonerated while disobeying a lawful order.

# 147 Bob said, on November 17th, 2006 at 2:39 pm

There’s no reason to tazer the young man because he doesn’t follow the law. Maybe they should of hugged him. He probably had a bad childhood. I’m sure if the cops lit up a joint and sang anti-war songs everything would be fine.

# 148 OhForTheLoveOf said, on November 17th, 2006 at 2:39 pm

#140 – Why they didn’t charge him with trespassing is a different matter. Maybe the UCLA dropped the charges or just asked the police to make him leave.

Or more to the point, he wasn’t trespassing.

Did you read post #29 above that clearly points out the student was trespassing?

I don’t know if you are wrong if if you are a liar, but since #29 is easy to scroll up to we call all see clearly that it says no such thing.

#143 – I’m sorry JimR, but I don’t see why the cops would even show up if there wasn’t a concern. In any case, though once they are investigating, whatever they were investigating, the kid was still a suspect.

Blow some more smoke out your ass… The cops showed up because they were called. That much at least is what they were supposed to do. After that, they are supposed to handle the situation with sound judgement, but instead they violently assaulted a kid and scared the shit out of a bunch of students.

This is most certainly a question of abuse of power… A kid in handcuffs is tazered four times and you manage to reach down into some primordial core cough up a defense for so barbaric an act? Your character is seriously called into question by your relentless defense of these soon to be ex-cops.

# 149 gquaglia said, on November 17th, 2006 at 2:41 pm

Racial profiling? I guess it worked in the past with blacks, why not with Arabs. Nothing like calling someone a racist or a profiler to get your way. Most back off when these words are used, justified or not. Hey, its how OJ got off.

# 150 Laserdisc said, on November 17th, 2006 at 3:33 pm

Student defied authority, and the authority abused it’s power. Once the guy was tazzed then handcuffed it shouldn’t of been too hard for 2 officers to lug his butt to the squad car and sent “downtown”. Instead it turns into a frightening situation in front of students who are perhaps traveling in groups (with video cameras in hand) on campus because they fear the UCLA police. And who’s doing the investigation I wonder? Does Internal Affairs have any jurisdiction here? Or does UCLA have their own “version” of IA? I’m pro police but in this instance the officers REALLY screwed up royally.

# 151 OhForTheLoveOf said, on November 17th, 2006 at 3:54 pm

#150 Most back off when these words are used, justified or not. Hey, its how OJ got off.

Comment by gquaglia — 11/17/2006 @ 2:41 pm

No. It isn’t.

OJ got off because the LAPD and the prosecution so badly bungled the case. Lesson #1 – Never try to frame a guilty man. Further, the jury was not privvy to all the evidence that the home audience was. It was Sidebar City at Judge Ito’s Three Ring Courtroom. If I had been in the jury box, rather than watching from the outside, I might have aquitted him too.

It was a travesty… But OJ isn’t walking free because the judicial system was afraid of looking racist. And any serious observer of that fiasco knows that. Especially Christopher Darden…

On the other hand, maybe it is a testiment to the legal system. Maybe it is a good thing that we see an example of a man walking free because the prosecution and (moreso) the LAPD could not prove the case. It’s a shame this “good thing” is marred by the fact that its a sham and OJ is a murderer… :-/

And another thing…. I doubt this student was “profiled”… I doubt that the community officer and the cops were looking for Arab looking (this guy’s actually Persian) people to hassle…. But I do believe his being Abab looking, and to a lessor extent male, resulted in treatment far different from what some other kind of student would have recieved.

# 152 SN said, on November 17th, 2006 at 3:56 pm

“Never try to frame a guilty man.”

God that’s probably the funniest thing I’ve read this week! Funny cause it’s true.

# 153 Greymoon said, on November 17th, 2006 at 5:43 pm

Powell Library Investigation Report

Investigator: Tell us what happen Officer 1.

Officer 1: We were called to the library about a student who wouldn’t produce his ID after 11pm and refused to leave. Upon arriving at the library we found the student apparently trying to leave without showing ID. By this time the student had begun to walk toward the door with his backpack when an officer approached him and grabbed his arm, at which point the student told the officer to let him go. The student began to yell ‘get off me’, repeating himself several times. It was at this point we handcuffed him for non compliance of the ID Rule.

Investigator: What happen after that?

Officer 1: We commanded the student to stand up and he refused mumbling something about a medical condition. So we tased him for non compliance of the Stand Up Rule.

Investigator: Did the student stand up after this?

Officer 1: No he refused to stand up after being tased. After ordering him to stand again he refused my direct order so I tased him again for non compliance with the Direct Order Rule.

Officer 2: At this point several other students asked for my ID. I threatened them with my taser because I felt in fear for my authority.

Investigator: What happen next?

Officer 1: I commanded the student to stand again. Again he refused so I tased him again for non compliance of the Stand Up Rule. This continued 6 or 7 more times until myself and officer 2 decide to just carry the student out of the library.

Investigator: Did it ever occur to either one of you that a student who has been tased perhaps can not stand immediately after such an event?

Officer 1: No, thats not how it happened, we tased him then demanded he stand up. He violated the ID Rule, the Stand Up Rule and the Direct Order Rule.

Officer 2: What he said.

Investigator: Do you two idiots realize you have opened the University up for a major lawsuit?

Officer 1: Doh!

Officer 2: What he said.

Chancellor Norman Abrams: Compliance is critical for the safety and well-being of everyone. Whats the problem here?

# 154 Steve said, on November 17th, 2006 at 5:51 pm

I hope he sues thie effing asses off.

# 155 Mistah Gonzo said, on November 17th, 2006 at 6:12 pm

UCLA is a campus, and about 20,000 young women attend there, it is NOT a laboratory for anarchy so predators can prey on your sisters.

I say: GOOD FOR THE UCLA police. They gave that surly little PUNK what he deserved.

IF HE DOESN’T LIKE IT, HE SHOULD GO BACK TO IRAN!

# 156 Mr. Fusion said, on November 17th, 2006 at 7:37 pm

#147, Now, Mr. Fusion, it’s on you. Show me a single case where someone was exonerated while disobeying a lawful order.
Comment by Adam — 11/17/2006 @ 2:39 pm

How about one where someone didn’t obey an order not backed by law.

Rodney King. And he was given a few million dollars and a city apology too, proving that you don’t have to obey EVERY ORDER BY A COP. I know how much your ass loved that beating, but the taxpayers in LA didn’t.

# 157 Mr. Fusion said, on November 17th, 2006 at 7:44 pm

#150, gq,

Hey, its how OJ got off.
Comment by gquaglia — 11/17/2006 @ 2:41 pm

Nope, OJ got off because of sloppy and suspect police work. For example, blood on the socks but none on the rug. Blood spots that matched on both sides of the sock. Missing blood from the samples. It looked like he was being framed by the police so the jury bought it.

Moral of the story, let the evidence convict, don’t make the evidence acquit.

# 158 JimR said, on November 17th, 2006 at 8:38 pm

aaaaaaaaaannnnd… that’s a wrap!

Roll the credits.

# 159 Adam said, on November 17th, 2006 at 8:48 pm

#157 “How about one where someone didn’t obey an order not backed by law.”

Well, that wouldn’t be a LAWFUL order, now would it? I’ll try again, find a single case where someone was exonerated while disobeying a lawful order.

I find it’s best to read the whole sentence before you answer.

# 160 Mr. Fusion said, on November 17th, 2006 at 9:05 pm

#160, well that is just stupid. If it is a lawful order, then of course it must be obeyed. Your implication is that if the police give a citizen an order then it must be obeyed. And that is just not the case.

With Rodney King the police testified that they had the right to order him to “assume the position” which he didn’t do because he wasn’t obligated to do. The police testified that it was their “policy” to use force on a victim who didn’t follow their explicit orders. In the civil rights action the Court found for King that the police do not have an unfettered right to order citizens and the use of force may not exceed that which is required to apprehend and detain the suspect.

You can’t cite any statutory law requiring a citizen to obey a policeman’s orders. You can’t even cite a judicial opinion equivalent to this case. You ask for one case of something stupid and irrelevant to the discussion.

There is no argument that the police have the right to stop him and request identification. They did NOT have the right to physically grab him without first asking him to stop, which they didn’t do. They did NOT have the right to tazer him at least four times as he was not a danger to himself or anyone else.

Whether the kid is an asshole or not is irrelevant. It is not illegal to be an asshole. All assholes, including you, are also entitled to the full protections of the law.

# 161 Adam said, on November 17th, 2006 at 10:06 pm

#161 “Your implication is that if the police give a citizen an order then it must be obeyed.”

I gave a very detailed list of what orders must be followed, only an idiot would infer that I meant something else… oh, well that explains the confusion.

“You can’t cite any statutory law requiring a citizen to obey a policeman’s orders.”

This sentence has two possible meanings, and you’re either poor at writing, or are writing to purposefully obscure your meaning. I can cite statutory law that there are orders that must be followed, however there is no law stating that ALL orders must be followed, regardless of legality.

I was responding to the first meaning, since no one claimed that all orders, regardless of legality, must be followed. The first mention of the topic is you, when you said:

“I know you are going to argue that when the police tell you to do something, he must obey.”

So you created your own argument here, in a classic strawman, which you continue to use even though you have been told, more than once, that you are wrong.

So, again, just for the love of typing: NO ONE MADE THE CLAIM, SO THERE’S NO NEED TO CITE LAWS. Soooo, does that make me racist again?

# 162 Mr. Fusion said, on November 17th, 2006 at 11:18 pm

Since there are NO statutes that compel free citizens to arbitrarily follow police orders, here are two cases where force and cause of arrest are discussed in the Tenth and Fourth circuits.

http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2006/02/04-2062.htm

http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021761.P.pdf

(The civilians won in both cases. Also not, I put links to them so you can check them out)

# 163 Mr. Fusion said, on November 17th, 2006 at 11:36 pm

162, “You can’t cite any statutory law requiring a citizen to obey a policeman’s orders.”

This sentence has two possible meanings, and you’re either poor at writing, or are writing to purposefully obscure your meaning
If you see two possible meanings then your split personality is acting up again. There is one and one only. – You, are incapable of referencing any law that makes a free citizen subservient to the whims of a policeman. It is not a trick question, only a challenge to the saliva splattered claim that we must obey the police. I won’t reference every one, but you can get the drift.

4, …maybe next time they will show some respect for the law. Or be more civil with the officer, perhaps saying “Yes, office

19, These cops did absolutely nothing wrong. even threatening to taze the other students wasn’t wrong.

29, That guy was an a-hole… big time. He deserved everything dished out to him… he practically demanded it.

31, Stupid ass pompous college kids asking for badge numbers.

34, Boy you people live in a fantasy land. #1 rule, the guy with the gun is always right.

45, You have to do what they say, though because they are the cops.

72, That guy was a dumbass. Maybe he will consider using proper behavior next time.

103, Common sense dictates you should do as he says because the risk of him just losing his cool and shooting you is just not worth it in most situations, and the only think at stake here was the student’s pride.

106, I will also repeat that every argument in favour of that kids actions has been nothing but name calling or challenges like “show me the law…”. (of course, the opposite is also true)

107, People need to learn to obey authority.

117, The loquacious little twerp was given every chance to obey a reasonable request, and received exactly what could be expected by disobeying it.

130 You have to do what a cop tells you even if you think is wrong. They are the law.

# 164 RBG said, on November 18th, 2006 at 12:01 am

You missed one. It’s called the “Law of the jungle.”

You must obey big man with weapon – or you may find yourself dead right.

Later you find small man with bigger weapon – like a fully-loaded Supreme Court.

RBG

# 165 Adam said, on November 18th, 2006 at 12:31 am

#45 and #130 do appear to support you, and I can see why you would would make your claim, so I can admit that I was wrong.

I would posit, though, that they can each be read in a way that doesn’t make the claim you suggest, but they are vague enough to cause confusion, similar to how your phrasing was imprecise and caused confusion.

When I read #45, I read it as saying “you don’t respect cops because they have guns, you respect them because of their office”, but on further analysis your rendering is probably the more common one.

#130 sounds to me like it’s saying that it is prudent to follow orders, but not necessarily legally required, but again the wording is unfortunate. Again, my interpretation is less accurate.

The rest of your snippets don’t support you, but no matter, you only needed one to prove me wrong (and you doubled that).

If you see two possible meanings then your split personality is acting up again.

This shows you don’t really understand the proper construction of a sentence. There is a missing, and implied, clause in the sentence (as happens often in English, which is often quite imprecise). In this case, “policemen’s orders” does not necessarily refer to *ALL* policemen’s orders, but I don’t really expect you to understand it, so I won’t bother explaining it further.

As long as you’re copying snippets from messages, go back to the other cop thread we were arguing on and show me the snippet where I denied that DWBs happen. Or are you going to persist in that lie? At least I can admit when I was wrong, let’s see if you’re capable of the same.

# 166 Greymoon said, on November 18th, 2006 at 5:07 am

Fusion vs. Adam Debate Report

Fusion: Mines bigger than yours.

Adam: No, mines bigger than yours.

Fusion: Yours is smaller than mine.

Adam: No, yours is smaller than mine.

Fusion: You’re stupid.

Adam: Mines bigger than yours.

Fusion: No, mines bigger than yours.

Adam: Yours is smaller than mine.

Fusion: No, yours is smaller than mine.

Adam: You’re an idiot.

# 167 Max said, on November 18th, 2006 at 6:45 am

Hahahahaha! You knee-jerks!

SN – Look it up online – UCLA Student code of conduct, Section IV.A.3, and I quote:

3. All persons on University property are required, for reasonable cause, to identify themselves to, and comply with instructions of, authorized University officials acting in the performance of their duties. Authorized Representatives of a Registered Campus Organization may request identification of persons in the Organization’s business meetings.

I love the internet – except when it’s full of knee-jerks who spew their uninformed opinion around like manure…

# 168 SN said, on November 18th, 2006 at 7:02 am

#168

I’m not entirely sure what point you were trying to prove, but you proved my point exactly.

First, it says that a student only has to show his ID for “reasonable cause.” In this attack he was forced to show it on a random check! What “reason” did anyone have to check his ID? None. If the University wants random checks, they should update their rules to inform students of the change.

Second, at no point does the section say anything about a student having to leave school grounds for failure to have an ID.

Third, at no point does it give the cops a right use a tazer, or any force, against a student for lack of compliance.

And read my third update up above: “sheriff’s policies expressly say deputies can’t use Tasers simply to move someone.” That’s exactly what happened here. The victim was not causing any trouble, he was just studying. The cops wanted him moved so they tazered him. Ooops, you guys just violated your own policies!

# 169 Mr. Fusion said, on November 18th, 2006 at 9:18 am

Just to add to SN’s comment in 169,

[LAPD Assistant Chief Jeff]Young described Tabatabainejad as a “passive resister” who refused to cooperate with officers. He acknowledged that the student didn’t actively resist the officers.

# 170 SN said, on November 18th, 2006 at 9:28 am

“He acknowledged that the student didn’t actively resist the officers”

So basically they zapped Ghandi, it’s a good thing the British military didn’t have tazers!

# 171 RBG said, on November 18th, 2006 at 10:53 am

169. While still maintaining the officers did not act in the most appropriate way, let me say that a random ID check is a cause for showing ID, otherwise, what’s the point? All that remains is whether it is a reasonable cause or not. Since unauthorized people remaining in the library after 11 PM had been determined to be a threat to student safety, that makes a check reasonable… and again a cause for ID checks. There’s your “reasonable cause.”

“are required (to) comply with instructions of, authorized University officials” That pretty much covers “having to leave school grounds”.

REQUIRE: 2. to demand, as by authority; insist upon; compel.

and being zapped…

COMPEL: 1. to urge irresistibly. Syn: necessitate, coerce, constrain, make, drive, force.

The Scribner-Bantam English Dictionary.

Do you think students have to agree to these terms as a condition of enrollment?

RBG

# 172 Ascii King said, on November 18th, 2006 at 10:53 am

So, Mr. Fusion is correct in that there is no law stating that everyone must obey every order given by the police. My post was used as the example to prove Adam wrong? Did anyone else here think Adam was trying to prove that we have to obey EVERY order or was it just Mr. Fusion?

In the future I will be ignoring Mr. Fusion. You attributed an argument to us and then proved that argument wrong. How stupid is that?

SN, your post #168 is wrong on two counts. You first ask “What “reason” did anyone have to check his ID?” The reason was clearly stated. The library is not available to any non-students or staff after 11pm.

Then you say the following.
“Second, at no point does the section say anything about a student having to leave school grounds for failure to have an ID.”

Why do you keep making arguments like this? Of course it doesn’t say it in that small section he posted. It does say it elsewhere though. See post #29.

Finally, your third argument is a good one. Possibly the only good one from you I have seen, but it is a clincher.
“The sheriff’s policies expressly say deputies can’t use Tasers simply to move someone”

# 173 dickeades@cox.net said, on November 18th, 2006 at 11:23 am

I say both sides are wrong on this one. The student, adept at playing the role of victim, intentionally went to the library without his ID for the purpose of trapping the police into doing exactly what they did. Everyone loses.

# 174 RBG said, on November 18th, 2006 at 11:30 am

169. “sheriff’s policies expressly say deputies can’t use Tasers simply to move someone.”

0. Update: “Several local police agencies — including the LAPD and Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department — allow officers to use Tasers only if a suspect poses a physical threat or is acting combatively.”

Whoa. I thnk you accidently confused “Several local police agencies” with the UCLA police and possibly even the Taser policies of all other police agencies.

“Update III: It appears the UCLA doesn’t trust its internal police force, as the university has ordered an outside and independent probe of this attack.”

Now this is truly funny.

From:
UCLA’s Daily Bruin
http://www.dailybruin.com/news/articles.asp?id=39010

Re the big student protest march to the doors of the Westwood police station:

“But students at the rally said they wanted an additional investigation to be conducted by an outside organization, adding that they wanted students to be involved with the investigation as well.”

I especially like the part about the students wanting to be involved in the independent investigation.

RBG

# 175 SN said, on November 18th, 2006 at 11:39 am

“Whoa. I thnk you accidently confused “Several local police agencies” with the UCLA police and possibly even the Taser policies of all other police agencies.”

So you’re saying that the UCLA police can zap someone just to move him or her?! Really?! Show me that rule please!

And I know about the student protest. But if the people behind the UCLA truly believed in their police why would they submit to the external investigation? Heck, it was only 200 students. Maybe they have a hint that something did go wrong?

# 176 RBG said, on November 18th, 2006 at 12:27 pm

Because UCLA is a compassionate organization that listens to their students – even those screaming in pain. The answer to your external investigation question is obvious.

I can’t show “UCLA police can zap someone just to move him or her” but I can explain to you just because you can point to one or two other jurisdications that forbid it, this has no bearing on UCLA.

RBG

# 177 joshua said, on November 18th, 2006 at 7:49 pm

#143…..I inadvertantly cited your post as being wrong….I apologise, I meant to cite post number 144.

All you storm trooper supporters are going to just shit when this goes to court and that kid is proved to have been a victim of stupidity and police abuse. Your going to shit more if your from California and this kid gets about 10 million from the UC system. And those wannbe storm troopers are fired and possibly charged in this case.

And I’m a law and order conservative.

# 178 RBG said, on November 18th, 2006 at 11:05 pm

178. Man, one can only truly marvel at the fellow’s brilliance. Sign me up in a heart beat.

RBG

# 179 Mr. Fusion said, on November 19th, 2006 at 6:08 pm

What is it worth to be tazered four or five times within a short period of time?

# 180 JoeBC said, on November 19th, 2006 at 7:11 pm

I, like so many of the posts before me, find this incident absolutely troubling. To me, the operative word in determining proper response here is “context.” An earlier poster who identified himself as a library employee at a University laid out a very plausible alternative to phoning in the police: cross-check his driver’s license or other information against a student database (and yes, a rich pompous school like UCLA–as many of you have so nobly alluded to–would certainly possess such capabilities). The poster properly identified that the context of the incident was a library at a major university. The student was at a computer studying. This was not a drunk man in a dangerous area of town acting suspicious (see above cited legal authority. Not to mention there the issue was a driver’s license and not a student ID). Only under the circumstances of a very specific threat, not mere idiocy (which the kid undoubtably reacted with), should the context of a school library allow police to taser someone for not showing an ID, refusing to leave (the first time), refusing to stand, or whatever other justification anyone wants to throw out for the officer’s actions. It’s even harder to justify tasering the kid several more times or threatening to taze the concerned students for gathering or asking for a badge number.
Did the kid act like a jerk? Was it ridiculous to allude to the Patriot Act? Did he deserve to be repremanded? YES! Did he deserve to be tazered? NO! I ask some of the posters on this website to think back to some of the dumb stuff they did when they were young. I personally have plenty of friends who went to jail for the night for resisting arrest drunk at a bar with far greater resistance than this. They didn’t get tazed. I don’t think you can justify that kind of reaction here.
People that are saying the kid “deserve it” mostly ignore that “deserving it” means that the kid deserved punishment. It does NOT mean that the kid deserved to be Tazered. Grab him and throw him out of the library, let him walk out, drag him to the station, question him kicking and screaming like a little baby with four other officers to his own humiliation, I don’t care. If we’re going to start tazing people for this kind of behavior, it’s going to be an electric society.
As for the legal authority, I’d be more than happy to take on this case. Those that have cited to authority have cited to cases which are easily factually distinguishable and mostly off point. The statute is only questionably applicable in the current case and even if it is, a statute does not grant the right to TAZER someone. This kid will not need to worry about tuition at UCLA and nor should he. It’s times like this when the country should be glad to have “sharks.”

# 181 katie said, on November 19th, 2006 at 7:17 pm

ok first of all, that guy was out of control. you never talk to a police officer like that and act like that. the cops said that they felt threatened by the guy and i think an officers life is more important then some guy, they protect our community. they did what they felt was in the best interest of themselves. i give the cops two thumbs up cause trust me, i would have done then same thing!

# 182 amir said, on November 19th, 2006 at 10:49 pm

we want justice for mustafa

# 183 RBG said, on November 20th, 2006 at 1:03 am

180. I would do it for $5,000. Taser Cops must get the dart mode (not the easier drive-stun) treatment, for free.

181. I doubt the security people have the training nor are permitted to be involved in anything physical. And why should the police officers be involved in anything physical – employing neanderthal bar bouncer tactics – and risking bites and thumbs in eyes or worse? The drive-stun mode is designed to avoid all that. If you think the charge is too brutal, then simply design the device to have the charge turned down. But here’s betting the charge is already at the minimal required to get someone’s attention.

RBG

# 184 joshua said, on November 20th, 2006 at 2:21 pm

#182…Katie…..excuse me….but where is this **out of control** student you speak of??? Did you watch the video? He gave passive (physically) resistance. Verbally his mouth was running….but thats not something any cop would feel threatened by, unless they are a nazi wuss. The cops were the ones using physical force, NOT the student.
Either learn to read English or get new glasses, because you haven’t a clue apparently as to what was going on here.

# 185 Angel H. Wong said, on November 20th, 2006 at 4:14 pm

At least he was a cop who tasered him, a soldier would have shot him in a heartbeat.

# 186 Frank Baird said, on November 20th, 2006 at 8:02 pm

“Update III: It appears the UCLA doesn’t trust its internal police force, as the university has ordered an outside and independent probe of this attack.”

How does this prove “the UCLA doesn’t trust its internal police force”? Is it possible they wanted to avoid the appearance of a cover-up and instead are trying to be as unbiased as possible? I suspect if they had initiated an internal investigation it would be viewed as corruption. So either way, UCLA is viewed as bad.

Sorry, this is simply bad, unobjective reporting.

# 187 Matt H said, on November 21st, 2006 at 9:10 am

“At least he was a cop who tasered him, a soldier would have shot him in a heartbeat.”

Angel, you’re such an idiot it’s beyond words. Every single time you post a comment, you prove more and more that you know less and less. Believe it or not, soldiers are trained in use of force tactics, just as police are. On top of that, a soldier would never deal with a civil disturbance like that again, except for marshall law, because of the Posse Comitatus Act. Go Google that, learn some things, take a nickle, and buy a $&^$* clue.

Moron.

# 188 Cal Guy said, on November 21st, 2006 at 10:11 am

In case people are still having trouble seeing this incident for what it really is, here’s a quick blow by blow:
-Student is in an area that requires an official campus ID
-Student feels he is above the rules and refuses to produce said ID
-The police are called because the student can’t be dealt with
-The police can’t deal with him either
-A video ends up on youtube and the whole incident becomes a racial commentary because the guy’s parents are from Iran

Seriously, I feel sorry for you Americans. If you’re one of the ones I haven’t met yet that are sick of the bickering about civil liberty, slavery, Islamic related tension/conflict, and your joke of an electoral system, I sincerely extend to you my warmest invitation to move to the greatest country in the world, Canada.

# 189 Cal Guy said, on November 21st, 2006 at 10:12 am

PS I couldn’t help but laugh when he started screaming “here’s your Patriot Act”. Something tells me this guy doesn’t need a tazer hit to make his heart bleed though.

# 190 Codemonkey said, on November 21st, 2006 at 1:59 pm

I just want to note that, it wasn’t that he DIDN’T have his ID, its that he didn’t produce it. He felt he was being racially profiled (since he was the only one asked to produce an ID out of all the people there).

# 191 ls said, on November 21st, 2006 at 11:21 pm

Cal Guy, there is not a room for you and people like you in this world. Why don’t you die and join Hitler in HELL?

# 192 Mitch Richmond said, on November 29th, 2006 at 11:07 pm

It’s just pure abuse of power – black power. I’m sure the powlice didn’t asked for the ID’s of the other students, because he was pretending to be white. lol. Inject some Megavolts in one’s body and command him to stand up, you Moron. Polpot, Idi Amin, SS, Stalin, Mao, KKK, UCLA powlice. I say stand back or I’ll taze you . . .*&^%$, because I’m god. Next time you mess with the powlice, we’ll gas you, lol. Was Lew an alumni ? what would he say ??

# 193 B.S.Christopher said, on December 7th, 2006 at 4:22 pm

Anyone who would justify the polices’ abuse of authority is simply mislead. The freedoms we are guaranteed in America limit the amount of force needed to subdue any citizen. Clearly this young citizens rights were systematically violated. During a time of civil unrest ,generated by wars in foreign countries, this students skin color afforded him the opportunity to get the ass kicking of a lifetime. People BEWARE this could be YOU or someone you LOVE….. which profile do you fit into? White trash, Gangsta, Terrorists, ……..which one do THEY think your in? How could any American be expected to respect an authority that clearly can’t respect themselves. Unfortunately situations just like this happen everyday in this land of Liberty.

# 194 Lex said, on December 8th, 2006 at 3:05 pm

It’s interesting how quick the emotional response to this whole situation got out of hand, and how the media chose to portray it before more details came to light. In this situation, the student in question was in the library late at night, where there is a posted policy to limit facilities to students and staff after 10 (hence ask for ID). When asked by security to show his ID, he refused (11:12 PM). Told to leave, he did not comply, Security could have laid hands at this point, but did not. Because of continued non compliance, security calls the police department, and they arrive on site (11:32 PM). At this point he’s broken the law (Security has the authority to ‘trespass’ any person on their property), and says he’ll leave but doesn’t actually leave (it’s easy to say you will do something, not doing it really demonstrates the intention). Rather, he becomes loud, combative, and refuses ID or leave commands until he is first tazed (11:41 PM). After being tazed (remember, EVERY law enforcement official is tazed during training at least once, they know what it feels like and how you recover from it), he continues to refuse orders, and demonstrates both passive resistance (collapse) and active resistance (exaggerated yelling, profanity, kicking legs). I think if people had to sit through a FULL video of him refusing polite commands from security and library staff and then ‘leave’ commands from them for 20 minutes, and then another 10 minutes of non-cooperation with the police, they would have much less sympathy for him than the video of the physical confrontation alone gives.

# 195 Alex Killby said, on August 4th, 2007 at 12:55 pm

The officers did nothing wrong here. Just becuase the student belonged to a minority group, he’s claiming he’s above the law and isn’t subject to questioning, have some respect for the police if you want them to protect your rights. If he had cooperated everything would have been fine, but he’s being a smart alec.

# 196 forrest said, on October 5th, 2007 at 9:37 am

The cops went to far when they tazed the student because he asked a hard question to Kerry. Some one had to have started to provoke the cops into tazing the student

Leave Your Reply Below...

Comment Moderation is Active, so if your comment doesn't
show up immediately, please don't submit it again.

Special Deals 4U

25% off eHarmony subscription with code EHTECH
12-percent discount forever with code TECH
10-percent discount and free month using TECH10
10-percent or 30 dollars off weekly car rental!
Get 10-percent discount on car rental!
Get 10% off rental cars!
Get 10% off Dollar rentals!
Discounts on domain names!