what? im so sick of people asking this shit.
fine. lets say the guy told the cops that he dug up all their ancestors and had sex with their skulls. what difference does it make? they have a job to do and as officers of the law they must abide by it...you know...REGULATIONS? that does not include tasing a man when he is subdued.
now for reality: read the posted article, since it states clearly that the police were doing i.d. checks. the kid was acting like a douche and refused to leave.
Originally posted by BackFire
[B]No, did you read the reports?
Campus security asked him for his Student ID, since only UCLA students are allowed to use the computers after 11:00 pm (The incident took place at 11:30). He failed to produce one, so they told him he had to leave.
They left, came back a few minutes later and he hadn't left yet. They then called the UCLA police department because he hadn't left. As the police entered, he was in the process of leaving.
One of the cops stopped him, and grabbed his arm. He objected to this, which is what you can hear at the beginning of the video, him yelling.
The cops then tasered him and you can see the rest. This is literally ALL that happened prior to the video.
He didn't have his ID card, and didn't leave right away and didn't want to be touched.
that does not include tasing a man when he is subdued.
Originally posted by Kinneary
If he is resisting and is not subdued (having someone on his arm is not subduing him), then tasering him is warranted.
thank you captain obtuse. i pray you never become a cop since you cant seem to understand the fundamentals of apprehension. hint: you do not instruct a dangerous person who is sitting on the ground to GET UP. whats next? TAKE MY GUN!!!!
and he should have behaved calmly? well, yes, but wtf does him being a douche have to do with this?
a cop does not have the right to attack you because you offended him.
man you are so frikin thick.
Originally posted by Kinneary
If he's yanking away from you and refusing to follow instructions, that can be perceived as a potential threat. Therefore warranting the use of a taser.
one more time: he was on the ground and yanking away as they tried to drag him on to his FEET. they should have put him face down and cuffed him if they were worried about getting hit in the vagina. if he were to then resist arrest, however ridiculous it would be to tase him, it would still be legal procedure. this was not.
dont make up rules just to blindly defend anyone with a badge.
thats pathetic
Originally posted by Kinneary
If he's yanking away from you and refusing to follow instructions, that can be perceived as a potential threat. Therefore warranting the use of a taser.
Yanking away... dangerous. When I think of someone yanking away I think of someone trying to get away, or get up under their own power. Now if he had taken a swing at them... still, I think PVS is quite correct, from what I have seen they didn't seem to be following a logical procedure. You have a potentially dangerous person down, why then try and pull him to his feet? And besides, you want him on his feet, giving him a shot from a taser is not going to be conducive to achieving that.
But it's funny, I am in one of my university IT rooms at the moment, and security guards make regular ID checks. About half an hour ago there happened to be a person sitting a couple of rows away who didn't have his student ID and when told he would have to leave said: "and if I don't?"
Apparently failure to comply with the request of campus security will "result in a $500 fine and potential academic penalties" - he left quite quickly when told that. It seems since tasers are illegal here our security forces in this kind of job have been given other ways to insure security is maintained.
Originally posted by PVS
one more time: he was on the ground and yanking away as they tried to drag him on to his FEET. they should have put him face down and cuffed him if they were worried about getting hit in the vagina. if he were to then resist arrest, however ridiculous it would be to tase him, it would still be legal procedure. this was not.
dont make up rules just to blindly defend anyone with a badge.
thats pathetic
There's no real issue here.
And what rules am I making up to defend the police officers?
Originally posted by BackFire
No, did you read the reports?Here is what happened, and no this isn't on video, it doesn't have to be, it's supported by every single person who was there:
Campus security asked him for his Student ID, since only UCLA students are allowed to use the computers after 11:00 pm (The incident took place at 11:30). He failed to produce one, so they told him he had to leave. They left, came back a few minutes later and he hadn't left yet. They then called the UCLA police department because he hadn't left. As the police entered, he was in the process of leaving. One of the cops stopped him, and grabbed his arm. He objected to this, which is what you can hear at the beginning of the video, him yelling. The cops then tasered him and you can see the rest. This is literally ALL that happened prior to the video. He didn't have his ID card, and didn't leave right away and didn't want to be touched.
Again, yes he was wrong in not leaving right away, and he was wrong in yelling at the cops, but the fact is, what the officers did is much worse. They tasered him 5 times, several of which were while he was totally subdued and in handcuffs. The cops also threatened to taser other students. Quite simply, the punishment does not fit the crime.
Originally posted by Kinneary
Where are they published?
Everywhere. Just type in "UCLA Student Taser" on google and you will find dozens of them.
Originally posted by Kinneary
He should have left.
Thank you for restating what I said. Well done, you.
Originally posted by Kinneary
What does that mean? Was he walking out the door? Was he wrapping up a conversation on AIM? Was he talking to a couple of his friends at the computer next to him? What does 'in the process' mean?
Yes, it means he was actually walking out, as I said earlier.
Originally posted by Kinneary
Which is provocative to police officers. If he yelled at them and yanked away, he can be perceived as a threat and tasered.
Lies. Not wanting to be touched is not threatening an officer. But even so, that only cauces the first shock to be warranted, not the following 4, which were done while he was HAND CUFFED.
Originally posted by Kinneary
That's all that needed to happen. The police are justified.
Not correct at all. The police are not justified in tasering someone several times while they are hand cuffed and completely under their control. It seems you didn't even watch the video/read any of the accompanying text.
Originally posted by Kinneary
I'm guessing he didn't want to be tasered, either. Oh well. Should have done what the police told him. Or at least acted in a calm, collected manner when speaking to them.
Yes he should have, but yelling at a cop and telling him to not touch you is not grounds for tasering someone. I like your train of thought, though, anyone who isn't calm should automatically get shocked with a stun gun. Wow, why aren't you running shit?
Originally posted by Kinneary
If he is resisting and is not subdued (having someone on his arm is not subduing him), then tasering him is warranted.
No, having someone on his arm is not subduing him, HAVING HIM HAND CUFFED is. Jesus Christ, how many times do I have to reiterate that the man was actually cuffed during at least 3 of the tazes. Not getting it? One more time, maybe? He was handcuffed! Good lord.
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
the cop grabbed his arm. when a cop does this, you have to do what the cop says. (lets he tells you to drop to your knees and polish his apple). when a cop tries to detain you and you resist, of course things are going to escalate. if a cop tries to detain you, you do not resist. by doing this, the warning klaxons in the cops head is gonna sound.
you have to remember that cops, day in and out, see the worst humanity has to offer. for all they knew, dude was a terrorist planting a bomb. kind of far fetched, but not impossible in this day and age.
i know a few cops, and they all are very well trained, whether they are patrolmen, detectives, or, in this case, campus police. campus police go through the same academy that regular cops do.
the idiot should have left when security told him to. if i had been the security guard, i would have forced him from the library, then called the cops later.
Yes, you should do as a cop says. But not doing as a cop says shouldn't cause you to inherently be shot with a ****ing stun gun 5 times while you're hand cuffed. I can almost accept the first tazing, seeing as how he was struggling verbally (still not grounds for a tazing, but I'd see it as a bit more....passable). However, as soon as someone is cuffed, that's it, no more tazing unless he's flailing about trying to kick and headbutt you. This guy wasn't doing that. He was cuffed and lying on the damn ground, and they kept tazing him for not standing up, as if the 6 of them couldn't just pick him up and carry him out.
Yes, I know most cops are good, decent folk. I don't care about any of that. The problem is the cops in this particular case, are not. They vastly abused their authority and there is simply no defending their actions.
Again, they ****ing shot someone with a taser while he was cuffed lying on the ground. Do you people REALLY see nothing wrong with this? If so, I applaud your remarkable ability to totally withold logic from your ideas and thoughts. Just amazing.
Originally posted by BackFire
[B]Everywhere. Just type in "UCLA Student Taser" on google and you will find dozens of them.
Yes, it means he was actually walking out, as I said earlier.
Lies. Not wanting to be touched is not threatening an officer. But even so, that only cauces the first shock to be warranted, not the following 4, which were done while he was HAND CUFFED.
Not correct at all. The police are not justified in tasering someone several times while they are hand cuffed and completely under their control. It seems you didn't even watch the video/read any of the accompanying text.
Yes he should have, but yelling at a cop and telling him to not touch you is not grounds for tasering someone. I like your train of thought, though, anyone who isn't calm should automatically get shocked with a stun gun.
Wow, why aren't you running shit?
No, having someone on his arm is not subduing him, HAVING HIM HAND CUFFED is. Jesus Christ, how many times do I have to reiterate that the man was actually cuffed during at least 3 of the tazes. Not getting it? One more time, maybe? He was handcuffed! Good lord.
Handcuffs aren't the be-all-end-all of making sure someone's a non-threat.
And, like I've said OVER AND OVER, you can't tell a god damned thing from that video. When will some of you people learn that you need the WHOLE STORY before you pass judgement on ANYTHING? I haven't seen a single police report filed that details what happened, and as far as I know, the whole thing is still under investigation, so nothing's been published.
Are you using a different google than me? I didn't see any official police reports here: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...G=Google+Search
No police reports, there are several dozen news reports, and statements from eyewitnesses.
Once again, anywhere that you can offer me evidence that he was simply walking out would be much appreciated.
Since you are too lazy/inept to look for yourself: http://dailybruin.com/news/articles.asp?id=38960
Direct Quote: "Tabatabainejad was walking with his backpack toward the door when he was approached by two UCPD officers, one of whom grabbed the student's arm. In response, Tabatabainejad yelled at the officers to "get off me." Following this demand, Tabatabainejad was stunned with a Taser. "
Not wanting to be touched is not threatening an officer. However, when a cop put his hand on your arm to escort you somewhere that's the end of it. You don't pull away. I don't know if you've ever seen someone escorted anywhere by a police officer, but they always put their hand on the person's arm. It's to control the person and make sure they don't either run or strike the officer.
Yes, and if they DO pull away, for whatever reason, they should get attacked with a taser 5 times, even while they are handcuffed lying on the ground. Thank you for explaining this, obviously you have a great understanding of necessary force when it comes to police procedures.
Resisting a police officer forcefuly is warrant for tasering.
This simply wasn't happening. It especially wasn't happening while he was handcuffed.
I'm sorry, what are you running again?
The logic train, hop on, it makes your arguments make sense and creates a sound train of thought, it's great, join me?
http://www.officer.com/article/arti...p;siteSection=1Handcuffs aren't the be-all-end-all of making sure someone's a non-threat.
I know that, but when someone is handcuffed AND not physically resisting, that generally means you DON'T taze them several times. Or am I wrong there?
And, like I've said OVER AND OVER, you can't tell a god damned thing from that video. When will some of you people learn that you need the WHOLE STORY before you pass judgement on ANYTHING? I haven't seen a single police report filed that details what happened, and as far as I know, the whole thing is still under investigation, so nothing's been published.
The video shows all that needs to be seen for any reasonable person to come to the conclusion that these cops used excessive force. If for no other rason, then because he was handcuffed AND not resisting and still got hit with the stun gun. What happened before this doesn't change a thing. Whether dealing with a murderer or a kid who doesn't have his ID, hitting someone with a stun gun, after they're hand cuffed and lying on the, not resisting, you don't attack them with the stun gun. Can't really stress this enough.
Originally posted by BackFire
Yes, you should do as a cop says. But not doing as a cop says shouldn't cause you to inherently be shot with a ****ing stun gun 5 times while you're hand cuffed. I can almost accept the first tazing, seeing as how he was struggling verbally (still not grounds for a tazing, but I'd see it as a bit more....passable). However, as soon as someone is cuffed, that's it, no more tazing unless he's flailing about trying to kick and headbutt you. This guy wasn't doing that. He was cuffed and lying on the damn ground, and they kept tazing him for not standing up, as if the 6 of them couldn't just pick him up and carry him out.Yes, I know most cops are good, decent folk. I don't care about any of that. The problem is the cops in this particular case, are not. They vastly abused their authority and there is simply no defending their actions.
Again, they ****ing shot someone with a taser while he was cuffed lying on the ground. Do you people REALLY see nothing wrong with this? If so, I applaud your remarkable ability to totally withold logic from your ideas and thoughts. Just amazing.
Originally posted by BackFire
No police reports, there are several dozen news reports, and statements from eyewitnesses.Since you are too lazy/inept to look for yourself: http://dailybruin.com/news/articles.asp?id=38960
Direct Quote: "Tabatabainejad was walking with his backpack toward the door when he was approached by two UCPD officers, one of whom grabbed the student's arm. In response, Tabatabainejad yelled at the officers to "get off me." Following this demand, Tabatabainejad was stunned with a Taser. "
Yes, and if they DO pull away, for whatever reason, they should get attacked with a taser 5 times, even while they are handcuffed lying on the ground. Thank you for explaining this, obviously you have a great understanding of necessary force when it comes to police procedures.
This simply wasn't happening. It especially wasn't happening while he was handcuffed.
The logic train, hop on, it makes your arguments make sense and creates a sound train of thought, it's great, join me?
I know that, but when someone is handcuffed AND not physically resisting, that generally means you DON'T taze them several times. Or am I wrong there?
The video shows all that needs to be seen for any reasonable person to come to the conclusion that these cops used excessive force. If for no other rason, then because he was handcuffed AND not resisting and still got hit with the stun gun. What happened before this doesn't change a thing. Whether dealing with a murderer or a kid who doesn't have his ID, hitting someone with a stun gun, after they're hand cuffed and lying on the, not resisting, you don't attack them with the stun gun. Can't really stress this enough.
You're a hopeless case. You want to see police brutality because it would make your life exciting or it can make you feel like you're rebelling against the man by pointing out the injustices he's committing. You refuse to see the simple, and albeit much less exciting, truth that what they did was justified. The simple fact that you refuse to follow a simple string of cause and effect is illustrative of the point. You refuse to admit that you don't know enough about what happened and for some reason rely on eyewitness reports when those are the least reliable forms of evidence.
You don't know what happened. I don't know what happened. Shut the hell up about it already.
Originally posted by Kinneary
Yes, they tased him five times because he yanked away once.
no he went limp as they tried to pull him to his feet, as the article clearly points out:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-taser21nov21,0,1459046.story?coll=la-home-headlines
"Authorities said Tabatabainejad refused repeated requests to provide identification or to leave. The officers decided to use the Taser to incapacitate Tabatabainejad after he went limp while they were escorting him out and after he urged other library patrons to join his resistance, according to the university's account."
also, notice how he wasnt being placed under arrest, as authorities cleverly avoid alluding to.
Originally posted by Kinneary
You're a hopeless case. You want to see police brutality because it would make your life exciting or it can make you feel like you're rebelling against the man by pointing out the injustices he's committing.
Originally posted by Kinneary
You refuse to see the simple, and albeit much less exciting, truth that what they did was justified. The simple fact that you refuse to follow a simple string of cause and effect is illustrative of the point. You refuse to admit that you don't know enough about what happened and for some reason rely on eyewitness reports when those are the [b]least reliable forms of evidence.[/B]
yes, the actual viewing of the event proves nothing. i would wait for the testimony of those directly involved for a nonbias appraisal of the events 🙄
Originally posted by Kinneary
You don't know what happened. I don't know what happened. Shut the hell up about it already.
said the pot to the kettle. you declared many times that they were justified. now you say you dont know what happened...IN THE SAME POST no less...got hypocricy? thats right, im taking back your "i win through tireless parroting" medal.
PVS, I've said many times 'IF THIS HAPPENED THIS WAY they were justified.'
no
he went limp as they tried to pull him to his feet, as the article clearly points out:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/l...-home-headlines"Authorities said Tabatabainejad refused repeated requests to provide identification or to leave. The officers decided to use the Taser to incapacitate Tabatabainejad after he went limp while they were escorting him out and after he urged other library patrons to join his resistance, according to the university's account."
strawman for the win. now go to the beginning of the thread, read the pattern of his responses, and then feel silly
And anyone who's trying to claim this video as some kind of viable evidence for anything (other then obvious bias) has no idea what true, valid evidence is.
-Backfire
That's what I see from him. He's just changed his argument 180 degrees from 'You don't know what happened' to 'They used excessive force.' Forgive me if I don't consider him the most consistant person in the world.
yes, the actual viewing of the event proves nothing. i would wait for the testimony of those directly involved for a nonbias appraisal of the events
said the pot to the kettle. you declared many times that they were justified. now you say you dont know what happened...IN THE SAME POST no less...got hypocricy? thats right, im taking back your "i win through tireless parroting" medal.