Quote:
|
The guy wasn't tasered for not having his ID; He was tasered for not providing his ID when requested and then not leaving private property when asked to.
|
the question of the privateness of the property is irrelevant in this case because, like it or not, the kid was a student.
he or his family is shelling out a significant chunk of change for the privelege, and one of the benefits of that cash exchange is that he gets access to the facilities. period.
the question of his status could have been resolved VERY SIMPLY. resolving the matter is a no-brainer--that it does not seem to have occurred to anyone to check speaks volumes about the security apparatus employed by ucla.
none of this was necessary.
not a single aspect of it was necessary.
the questions you ask, infinite loser, presuppose a sequence of assumptions be held as binding that i think are entirely wrong.
to start with, you presuppose that the police action was legitimate.
i dont see that as even a remote possibility.
apparently, you think it is ok to tazer a student for forgetting an id card.
i think that is insane.
further, you make some kind of dreamland distinction between a tazer and physical force.
i do not know what you are talking about.
a tazer IS form of physical force.
and there is NO justification for anything like physical force being used in this context.
and this was a library.
you have university cops tazering a student in a library.
yay america indeed.
way to fucking go.