Student shot with Taser by UCPD officers - Page 4 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

hulk · 12-04-2006, 07:01 AM

That's being very anal about definitions, Cynth

But yes, that's more or less what I was on about.

Cynthetiq · 12-04-2006, 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hulk

That's being very anal about definitions, Cynth

But yes, that's more or less what I was on about.

Ah, I had thought your intent was to imply that we didn't have freedom of action to do as we please or want.

Dilbert1234567 · 12-04-2006, 07:46 AM

Yes anyone can be armed at any time, but this guy was resisting arrest. Placing a non compliant suspect in custody is dangerous, why else do you think they make suspects place there hands away from there bodies. If the student's hands were next to his body, and he refused an order to move them away to the cops could arrest him, the Taser was justified.

Moskie · 12-04-2006, 08:17 AM

I brought this up before, and maybe it was ignored for a reason... but if the officers were afraid that he was going to pull a weapon, how does tasering him while he's limp on the ground ensure the officers' safety? Handcuff the asshole and carry him out. Cattle prodding him amounts to the officers venting aggression on a suspect, which is something they should be penalized for.

little_tippler · 12-04-2006, 08:18 AM

I have read through all of the thread and I have to go with my gut instinct, particularly after watching that video. I feel it was abuse of power.

The student said clearly he was in the process of leaving, and asked them to not touch him, repeatedly. He also yelled out that he had a medical condition and after that was repeatedly tasered regardless. Despite most of you saying that it doesn't affect you badly to be tasered, I'm not sure you know what that guy may have felt. It's his body, not yours. He must have also been shit scared of what it could potentially do to him, if he didn't know if it could harm him or not. When he was tasered, his whole body seemed to be contorting, and he screamed. You think he was acting up? I would give him the benefit of doubt.

He could have stood up after that first tasering, but would you have? Honestly in the middle of the stress of that situation, it's anybody's guess how any of us might react. Mostly everyone knows what its like to be in a tense situation and lose it, only to think back and realize you could have done things differently.

I still think that despite his non-compliance, he was defiant because he felt he was in the right and being abused of, and that it WAS excessive use of force. What got me also was the way the police officers refused to give their badge number when requested. It seeems to me that they made some really bad choices, and then were lamely trying to protect themselves somehow.

What a shameful situation, it made my blood run cold when I saw the footage.

Dilbert1234567 · 12-04-2006, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moskie

I brought this up before, and maybe it was ignored for a reason... but if the officers were afraid that he was going to pull a weapon, how does tasering him while he's limp on the ground ensure the officers' safety? Handcuff the asshole and carry him out. Cattle prodding him amounts to the officers venting aggression on a suspect, which is something they should be penalized for.

tasering him makes it impossible to pull a weapon, while your being tasered. Cattle prodding is a stretch, cattle prods hurt much more than a taser. There is an investigation, as there should be, just don’t judge them guilty before the investigation finishes.

dksuddeth · 12-04-2006, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

Sorry I think you mistook something here. We have freedom of action and that is a tenent to the US Constitution. What we do not have here is freedom from consequence, which people tend to think that that it's is absovled or removed by invoking, "But because of...."

oh cynth, I do protest. We only have as much freedom of action/speech/and thought as the socialists think we'll be responsible with. As in this episode, because said student didn't jump and follow the only legitimate authority there, he no longer has any of that freedom, which is why most of the people here believe he deserved every volt and watt that was administered to him. How DARE he challenge the new socialist order of having our lives administered to so as to relieve us of our own personal responsibility.

Cynthetiq · 12-04-2006, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

oh cynth, I do protest. We only have as much freedom of action/speech/and thought as the socialists think we'll be responsible with. As in this episode, because said student didn't jump and follow the only legitimate authority there, he no longer has any of that freedom, which is why most of the people here believe he deserved every volt and watt that was administered to him. How DARE he challenge the new socialist order of having our lives administered to so as to relieve us of our own personal responsibility.

Sorry, again you overstate your opinion in inflammatory remarks that cloud your message.

He never had ANY of those freedoms what you claim the moment he set foot on campus property. He never had ANY of what you claim the moment he was on public property. In fact, since he's not a homeowner or a landowner, you do only get as much freedom as "the man" lets you.

n0nsensical · 12-04-2006, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hulk

Hence why they tazered him instead of shooting him a few times as he lay on the ground. They removed all threat from him without lasting harm to his person. And here's a kicker, n0nsensical - you don't live in a free society. Freedom of speech and belief does not equate to a freedom of action.

Yeah, I think this might be the most outrageous post in the thread yet. I'm not sure what kind of police state you're running down there, but this is the United States of America, and we fought for freedom from tyranny and we don't take it lightly. Some of us, anyway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dilbert1234567

tasering him makes it impossible to pull a weapon, while your being tasered. Cattle prodding is a stretch, cattle prods hurt much more than a taser. There is an investigation, as there should be, just don’t judge them guilty before the investigation finishes.

So it brings the point back up: why don't the police taser EVERYONE who's suspected of a crime and doesn't make it convenient for the police to arrest them to make sure none of them pull weapons?

Once again, I'm not saying this kid is in the right. When asked for ID he should either produce it or leave, and if he doesn't leave he should be made to leave. (Although there may or may not be a "racial profiling" aspect, and I think it would be wrong for him to be singled out to provide ID, I can't really comment on that because I don't know if anyone else was asked for ID or if not why he was singled out) What I'm saying is that his removal should have been handled in a civilized manner worthy of a democratic republic. Police torture as a means of coercion is not civilized and has no place in, yes, a free society. And when I say free society, I'm not talking about the freedom to do whatever you want. I'm talking about the freedoms we do in fact have taken as a whole, including freedom from tyranny of the authorities. Now sure, UCPD is a minor authority, and tasering a harmless suspect may be a minor tyranny, but I'm still calling it tyranny, and fear of the police is not the reason we should be following the law.

If someone is trespassing on my property and I tell him to leave, even if I tell him I'm going to punch him in the face if he doesn't leave, if I punch him in the face, that's still assault and battery, and it wouldn't be right for law enforcement to do it either. You still have rights when you're suspected of committing a crime, and in fact you still have rights when you're convicted of committing a crime in a court of law which I'll note the police is not. We have courts, judges, juries, and lawyers for a reason. You still have the right to not be physically violated unless you present an obvious threat. The possibility of having a weapon is not an obvious threat because again, anyone could have a weapon at any time, but the police don't go around tasering everyone suspected of committing a crime just because they could pull a weapon when they go to arrest the person. Police torture and fear of the police don't belong in a liberal (in the classical political science sense) democratic republic.

hulk · 12-04-2006, 02:45 PM

n0nsensical - Go out into the street, start screaming obscenities and punch an old woman. See how long you'll stay out of prison citing 'freedom of action' as a defense. It's got nothing to do with a police state, but limitations to what people can do is integral to society.

pig · 12-04-2006, 02:58 PM

hulk,

you don't see any difference in extremity in these two cases? i tell you what. why don't you go out and start tasering the shit out of every third person you pass on the street, and then justify it with "they could have been packing." see where that gets you. it would seem you're essentially backing that position for the police. do you back it for private citizens as well?

n0nsensical · 12-04-2006, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hulk

n0nsensical - Go out into the street, start screaming obscenities and punch an old woman. See how long you'll stay out of prison citing 'freedom of action' as a defense. It's got nothing to do with a police state, but limitations to what people can do is integral to society.

All I can guess by now is that you're deliberately ignoring my point, and the point of the whole debate. Yet as ridiculous as this is getting, you've given a perfect example to illustrate what that actually is. I can do that, and I'll be arrested, as I should be arrested, but the police will handle it in a civilized manner and will NOT start beating me with nightsticks and tasering me because I COULD have a weapon or just because they think I'm a jackass and deserve it, the latter being a very disturbing reason that people are giving to justify the UCPD actions.

dksuddeth · 12-04-2006, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

Sorry, again you overstate your opinion in inflammatory remarks that cloud your message.

Sorry cyn, I forgot my /sarcasm tag.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hulk

n0nsensical - Go out into the street, start screaming obscenities and punch an old woman. See how long you'll stay out of prison citing 'freedom of action' as a defense. It's got nothing to do with a police state, but limitations to what people can do is integral to society.

I fail to see the comparison of what you posed and what this kid did?

Dilbert1234567 · 12-04-2006, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by n0nsensical

Yeah, I think this might be the most outrageous post in the thread yet. I'm not sure what kind of police state you're running down there, but this is the United States of America, and we fought for freedom from tyranny and we don't take it lightly. Some of us, anyway.

Its not the US, its a private establishment inside of the US. if they held him down and continued to taser him, if they had tasered a sensitive spot, if they had pushed him back down and kept tasering him, that’s abuse, but they tasered him, let him respond, and then since he did not comply, he was tasered again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by n0nsensical

So it brings the point back up: why don't the police taser EVERYONE who's suspected of a crime and doesn't make it convenient for the police to arrest them to make sure none of them pull weapons?

Because most are smart enough to follow directions, he was asked to leave and he went limp. His arms may have been close to his body, we don’t know. People that are standing are easy to watch where there hands are, unlike someone who is limp on the ground. When the police bend down to cuff / restrain someone on the ground, they are off balance and vulnerable. that is why they have suspects place there hands either all the way stretched out, or on top of the head, this guy was limp and his hands where most likely in an unsafe position (from the cops perspective)

Quote:

Originally Posted by n0nsensical

...(Although there may or may not be a "racial profiling" aspect, and I think it would be wrong for him to be singled out to provide ID, I can't really comment on that because I don't know if anyone else was asked for ID or if not why he was singled out)...

racial profiling is a mute point, the cops had absolutely nothing to do with singling this guy out, that was the library staff.

Quote:

Originally Posted by n0nsensical

What I'm saying is that his removal should have been handled in a civilized manner worthy of a democratic republic. Police torture as a means of coercion is not civilized and has no place in, yes, a free society. And when I say free society, I'm not talking about the freedom to do whatever you want. I'm talking about the freedoms we do in fact have taken as a whole, including freedom from tyranny of the authorities. Now sure, UCPD is a minor authority, and tasering a harmless suspect may be a minor tyranny, but I'm still calling it tyranny, and fear of the police is not the reason we should be following the law.

I don’t see this as torture, as some one who has been tasered, I can tell you definitively, that it is not painful, it is uncomfortable, not in a pain sense, but in a 'why can't I control my limb' sense. I still have not heard of a good alternative solution to this problem, all I hear is they cops should have picked him up and carried him out; this is not safe for the cops.

Quote:

Originally Posted by n0nsensical

If someone is trespassing on my property and I tell him to leave, even if I tell him I'm going to punch him in the face if he doesn't leave, if I punch him in the face, that's still assault and battery, and it wouldn't be right for law enforcement to do it either. You still have rights when you're suspected of committing a crime, and in fact you still have rights when you're convicted of committing a crime in a court of law which I'll note the police is not. We have courts, judges, juries, and lawyers for a reason. You still have the right to not be physically violated unless you present an obvious threat. The possibility of having a weapon is not an obvious threat because again, anyone could have a weapon at any time, but the police don't go around tasering everyone suspected of committing a crime just because they could pull a weapon when they go to arrest the person. Police torture and fear of the police don't belong in a liberal (in the classical political science sense) democratic republic.

as for the trespassing, I think you may be wrong here, if some one is on my property uninvited, and I ask them to leave, and they don’t, I will call the cops, and they will make him leave, by force if necessary, this is no different then what we had in the library, he was asked to leave and they had to resort to violence because asking did not help. If some one is on my property and I feel threatened, I can take most actions within reason, if that includes force legally I’ll be fine, granted I don’t grossly overstep.

As for the legal’s, yes this should be investigated, we still don’t know the start of the confrontation; we have a crappy video from a ways away. Maybe his falling was perceived as a threat, or he had one hand in his pocket and they tasered him because they thought he was going for a weapon and was just waiting for a cop to get close. Maybe he did have his hands and arms outstretched, and the cops could have easily apprehended him... we don’t know. All I want is the benefit of the doubt until the investigation is complete. to many people hate cops just cause there cops, yes there are bad cops, but there also allot of damn good ones and I don’t want them to be handy capped just because some whinny kid wants to throw a fit.

n0nsensical · 12-04-2006, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dilbert1234567

Its not the US, its a private establishment inside of the US. if they held him down and continued to taser him, if they had tasered a sensitive spot, if they had pushed him back down and kept tasering him, that’s abuse, but they tasered him, let him respond, and then since he did not comply, he was tasered again.

Whether the place is public or private is irrelevant to the question of whether the use of weapons was justified. I can't agree that it was acceptable to use the taser even once. Using weapons is using weapons, it's the next level of force and isn't justified unless the suspect makes it justified by presenting a physical threat.

Quote:

Because most are smart enough to follow directions, he was asked to leave and he went limp. His arms may have been close to his body, we don’t know. People that are standing are easy to watch where there hands are, unlike someone who is limp on the ground. When the police bend down to cuff / restrain someone on the ground, they are off balance and vulnerable. that is why they have suspects place there hands either all the way stretched out, or on top of the head, this guy was limp and his hands where most likely in an unsafe position (from the cops perspective)

If they didn't see a weapon in in hand, if he didn't physically assault the officers, the position of his hands cannot possibly justify the use of weapons in my mind.

Quote:

I don’t see this as torture, as some one who has been tasered, I can tell you definitively, that it is not painful, it is uncomfortable, not in a pain sense, but in a 'why can't I control my limb' sense. I still have not heard of a good alternative solution to this problem, all I hear is they cops should have picked him up and carried him out; this is not safe for the cops.

It's their JOBS to be in potentially unsafe situations. Any traffic stop is an unsafe situation, anyone could pull a gun out of the glovebox and shoot the officer before he has a chance to ask for a license and registration! That doesn't justify Rodney King either. Now sure, Rodney King was a lot worse than this, but we have to fight the small fights too.

Quote:

as for the trespassing, I think you may be wrong here, if some one is on my property uninvited, and I ask them to leave, and they don’t, I will call the cops, and they will make him leave, by force if necessary, this is no different then what we had in the library, he was asked to leave and they had to resort to violence because asking did not help. If some one is on my property and I feel threatened, I can take most actions within reason, if that includes force legally I’ll be fine, granted I don’t grossly overstep.

There's a big difference between physically removing someone from a place, what the UCPD should have done, and assaulting someone with violent force and weapons.

Quote:

As for the legal’s, yes this should be investigated, we still don’t know the start of the confrontation; we have a crappy video from a ways away. Maybe his falling was perceived as a threat, or he had one hand in his pocket and they tasered him because they thought he was going for a weapon and was just waiting for a cop to get close. Maybe he did have his hands and arms outstretched, and the cops could have easily apprehended him... we don’t know. All I want is the benefit of the doubt until the investigation is complete. to many people hate cops just cause there cops, yes there are bad cops, but there also allot of damn good ones and I don’t want them to be handy capped just because some whinny kid wants to throw a fit.

And what, we don't need our 4th amendment protection from unreasonable search and seizure because it might hinder the police in finding criminals too? Our enumerated rights exist precisely because it's not a perfect world where the government always does the noble and proper thing. Although I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who really believe we don't need the 4th amendment, that's very disturbing.

Dilbert1234567 · 12-04-2006, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by n0nsensical

Whether the place is public or private is irrelevant to the question of whether the use of weapons was justified. I can't agree that it was acceptable to use the taser even once. Using weapons is using weapons, it's the next level of force and isn't justified unless the suspect makes it justified by presenting a physical threat.

now your being unreasonable, we still don’t know the circumstances, can we at least agree that there may have been a reason for there use, I’m not saying i am 100% sure it was justified, all i am saying is that it is possible that it was justified, and until we know everything (the investigation) lets not condemn the officers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by n0nsensical

If they didn't see a weapon in in hand, if he didn't physically assault the officers, the position of his hands cannot possibly justify the use of weapons in my mind.

Yes it does, if he was asked to remove his hands from his pockets and place them out away from his body, and he did not and kept his hands hidden, i have absolutely no problem with him being tasered. if he was asked, and he complied, he should have not been tasered, we just don’t know everything that happened.

Quote:

Originally Posted by n0nsensical

It's their JOBS to be in potentially unsafe situations. Any traffic stop is an unsafe situation, anyone could pull a gun out of the glovebox and shoot the officer before he has a chance to ask for a license and registration! That doesn't justify Rodney King either. Now sure, Rodney King was a lot worse than this, but we have to fight the small fights too.

your right it is there job to be put in danger, but they should not have to place them self in more danger because someone wants to be difficult, the student would have complied with the simple order of leaving, or standing up he would not have been tasered.

Quote:

Originally Posted by n0nsensical

There's a big difference between physically removing someone from a place, what the UCPD should have done, and assaulting someone with violent force and weapons.

Again, it may have not been safe to move the suspect, or to touch him. he was resisting, and may have gotten violent, why should the cops risk there safety for some one who is not cooperating. Had he just complied and left, none of this would have happened.

Quote:

Originally Posted by n0nsensical

And what, we don't need our 4th amendment protection from unreasonable search and seizure because it might hinder the police in finding criminals too? Our enumerated rights exist precisely because it's not a perfect world where the government always does the noble and proper thing. Although I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who really believe we don't need the 4th amendment, that's very disturbing.

This has nothing to do with the 4th amendment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4th amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

He was not searched, or arrested, he was asked to leave, and then he yelled and went limp, yelling is combative, and may have made the officers think he was a danger to them.

n0nsensical · 12-04-2006, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dilbert1234567

now your being unreasonable, we still don’t know the circumstances, can we at least agree that there may have been a reason for there use, I’m not saying i am 100% sure it was justified, all i am saying is that it is possible that it was justified, and until we know everything (the investigation) lets not condemn the officers.

The only thing that could make me think it was justified is if it becomes known that the guy tried to assault an officer. Judging from this video and the number of students who witnessed it, I'll give that a snowball's chance in Hell, but sure..

Quote:

Yes it does, if he was asked to remove his hands from his pockets and place them out away from his body, and he did not and kept his hands hidden, i have absolutely no problem with him being tasered. if he was asked, and he complied, he should have not been tasered, we just don’t know everything that happened.

Well, obviously we have a completely different opinion of what constitutes appropriate force.

Quote:

This has nothing to do with the 4th amendment.

He was not searched, or arrested, he was asked to leave, and then he yelled and went limp, yelling is combative, and may have made the officers think he was a danger to them.

God knows I never said the 4th amendment had anything to do with this! Don't put words in my mouth, it was a simple point of debate, shouldn't be that hard to understand. What I said is that the 4th amendment can make it more difficult for the police too but there are damn good reasons to have it, just like there are damn good reasons the police can't go around tasering anyone who doesn't cooperate as well. Even if he's yelling, how threatening...

Dilbert1234567 · 12-04-2006, 07:38 PM

sorry to put words in your mouth, i miss read you. no cops can't go around tasering people, nore should they.

a few weeks ago i mentioned a forum with some posters who were there, i finaly found it again:

http://messageboard.tuckermax.com/sh...6&page=1&pp=10

Jozrael · 12-04-2006, 10:51 PM

The student was obviously in the wrong. He was asked to leave. By a police officer. He had no right to be in there without ID. Yes, he may be a student, but read the rules of the library and they clearly state that you must have an ID to be there. Not be a student - be a card-carrying ID-holder.

So, he has no right to be there. He's asked to leave. Refuses. Police are called. THEY ask him to leave (legal order). He REFUSES. He doesn't start to leave or anything like that, he stands there and screams at them to stop touching him. Somewhere in this thread was mentioned that he had the right to say that - no he didn't!

He's refusing to obey a police officer's orders, they have the right to put their hand on him. He then causes a scene. He's obviously trying to just gather crowd support "Am I the only martyr here?" :P.

So then they tazer him to comply. While you may argue that they should have tried talking a bit more (though I think it'd be fruitless, I also think that), there was NOTHING wrong with them tazering him. Zero. At that point they were trying to arrest him. He was resisting arrest.

This type of tazer burns like hell for about 5 seconds, evidently (I've never been tasered, this is from 3 sources who have) and then you're fine. You can stand up. Fine. Unless he had a medical condition, which has not been mentioned besides a mere possibility anywhere, which I know would be if it were the case. Regardless, it's not the cop's responsibility to ask if you have lead poisoning before shooting you in the shoulder to disable your trigger hand - it's not their responsibility to ask if you're going to be more than normally hurt from a tazer before suppressing you.

As it were said, the cops were pretty much in the right. I would have supported them fully had I been there. Thank you to that UCLA student who posted.

hulk · 12-05-2006, 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pigglet

hulk,

you don't see any difference in extremity in these two cases? i tell you what. why don't you go out and start tasering the shit out of every third person you pass on the street, and then justify it with "they could have been packing." see where that gets you. it would seem you're essentially backing that position for the police. do you back it for private citizens as well?

You've entirely misinterpreted what I've said. If I was a police officer and someone presented a threat, I would not put myself nor anyone else at risk. The guy was _breaking the law_ by not complying. They weren't just trying to get him to leave, they wanted to make sure he wasn't some psycho waiting to jump someone. n0nsensical claimed you have a freedom of action - it is clear you do not, hence why if you break the law you will be punished, hence why these officers will no doubt have their choices reviewed and if need be reprimanded, hence if I act in a threatening manner I have no cause to complain when I'm subdued.

Quote:

Originally Posted by n0nsensical

All I can guess by now is that you're deliberately ignoring my point, and the point of the whole debate. Yet as ridiculous as this is getting, you've given a perfect example to illustrate what that actually is. I can do that, and I'll be arrested, as I should be arrested, but the police will handle it in a civilized manner and will NOT start beating me with nightsticks and tasering me because I COULD have a weapon or just because they think I'm a jackass and deserve it, the latter being a very disturbing reason that people are giving to justify the UCPD actions.

If they come to arrest you, and you drop to the ground screaming at the cops and making it a risk for them to do their jobs, damn right they're going to taser you. They used to beat with nightsticks for that sort of thing. The best way to attack someone is with surprise. A drop to the ground could, and very likely has in many cases, disguised a reach for a hidden weapon. Unless it was pure hyperbole, your claim that in the US you have a freedom of action implies that you believe that the Constitution protects him from being arrested.

Coyote Hunter · 12-07-2006, 03:57 PM

I love this
\because we MUST sacrifice our liberties to be protected at all times, even if it requires an occasional tasing by the police, or even to have a few people shot and killed as an example to NEVER disregard a policeman's authority. After all, they are the 'only ones'.

I learned a long time ago I am the nicest guy around when I get pulled over.
Don't mess with the police they will win every time

Dilbert1234567 · 12-07-2006, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coyote Hunter

I love this
\because we MUST sacrifice our liberties to be protected at all times, even if it requires an occasional tasing by the police, or even to have a few people shot and killed as an example to NEVER disregard a policeman's authority. After all, they are the 'only ones'.

I learned a long time ago I am the nicest guy around when I get pulled over.
Don't mess with the police they will win every time

If you have a beef with an officer, file a complaint, but for the love of god, don’t disregard a reasonable request.

12-04-2006, 07:01 AM	#121 (permalink)
hulk C'mon, just blow it. Location: Perth, Australia	That's being very anal about definitions, Cynth But yes, that's more or less what I was on about. __________________ "'There's a tendency among the press to attribute the creation of a game to a single person,' says Warren Spector, creator of Thief and Deus Ex." -- From an IGN game review.

12-04-2006, 07:46 AM	#123 (permalink)
Dilbert1234567 Devils Cabana Boy Location: Central Coast CA	Yes anyone can be armed at any time, but this guy was resisting arrest. Placing a non compliant suspect in custody is dangerous, why else do you think they make suspects place there hands away from there bodies. If the student's hands were next to his body, and he refused an order to move them away to the cops could arrest him, the Taser was justified. __________________ Donate Blood! "Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

12-04-2006, 08:17 AM	#124 (permalink)
Moskie Pure Chewing Satisfaction Location: can i use bbcode [i]here[/i]?	I brought this up before, and maybe it was ignored for a reason... but if the officers were afraid that he was going to pull a weapon, how does tasering him while he's limp on the ground ensure the officers' safety? Handcuff the asshole and carry him out. Cattle prodding him amounts to the officers venting aggression on a suspect, which is something they should be penalized for. __________________ Greetings and salutations.

12-04-2006, 08:18 AM	#125 (permalink)
little_tippler Leaning against the -Sun- Super Moderator Location: on the other side	I have read through all of the thread and I have to go with my gut instinct, particularly after watching that video. I feel it was abuse of power. The student said clearly he was in the process of leaving, and asked them to not touch him, repeatedly. He also yelled out that he had a medical condition and after that was repeatedly tasered regardless. Despite most of you saying that it doesn't affect you badly to be tasered, I'm not sure you know what that guy may have felt. It's his body, not yours. He must have also been shit scared of what it could potentially do to him, if he didn't know if it could harm him or not. When he was tasered, his whole body seemed to be contorting, and he screamed. You think he was acting up? I would give him the benefit of doubt. He could have stood up after that first tasering, but would you have? Honestly in the middle of the stress of that situation, it's anybody's guess how any of us might react. Mostly everyone knows what its like to be in a tense situation and lose it, only to think back and realize you could have done things differently. I still think that despite his non-compliance, he was defiant because he felt he was in the right and being abused of, and that it WAS excessive use of force. What got me also was the way the police officers refused to give their badge number when requested. It seeems to me that they made some really bad choices, and then were lamely trying to protect themselves somehow. What a shameful situation, it made my blood run cold when I saw the footage. __________________ Whether we write or speak or do but look We are ever unapparent. What we are Cannot be transfused into word or book. Our soul from us is infinitely far. However much we give our thoughts the will To be our soul and gesture it abroad, Our hearts are incommunicable still. In what we show ourselves we are ignored. The abyss from soul to soul cannot be bridged By any skill of thought or trick of seeming. Unto our very selves we are abridged When we would utter to our thought our being. We are our dreams of ourselves, souls by gleams, And each to each other dreams of others' dreams. Fernando Pessoa, 1918

12-04-2006, 02:45 PM	#130 (permalink)
hulk C'mon, just blow it. Location: Perth, Australia	n0nsensical - Go out into the street, start screaming obscenities and punch an old woman. See how long you'll stay out of prison citing 'freedom of action' as a defense. It's got nothing to do with a police state, but limitations to what people can do is integral to society. __________________ "'There's a tendency among the press to attribute the creation of a game to a single person,' says Warren Spector, creator of Thief and Deus Ex." -- From an IGN game review.

12-04-2006, 02:58 PM	#131 (permalink)
pig pigglet pigglet Location: Locash	hulk, you don't see any difference in extremity in these two cases? i tell you what. why don't you go out and start tasering the shit out of every third person you pass on the street, and then justify it with "they could have been packing." see where that gets you. it would seem you're essentially backing that position for the police. do you back it for private citizens as well? __________________ You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

12-04-2006, 07:38 PM	#138 (permalink)
Dilbert1234567 Devils Cabana Boy Location: Central Coast CA	sorry to put words in your mouth, i miss read you. no cops can't go around tasering people, nore should they. a few weeks ago i mentioned a forum with some posters who were there, i finaly found it again: http://messageboard.tuckermax.com/sh...6&page=1&pp=10 __________________ Donate Blood! "Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

12-04-2006, 10:51 PM	#139 (permalink)
Jozrael Junkie	The student was obviously in the wrong. He was asked to leave. By a police officer. He had no right to be in there without ID. Yes, he may be a student, but read the rules of the library and they clearly state that you must have an ID to be there. Not be a student - be a card-carrying ID-holder. So, he has no right to be there. He's asked to leave. Refuses. Police are called. THEY ask him to leave (legal order). He REFUSES. He doesn't start to leave or anything like that, he stands there and screams at them to stop touching him. Somewhere in this thread was mentioned that he had the right to say that - no he didn't! He's refusing to obey a police officer's orders, they have the right to put their hand on him. He then causes a scene. He's obviously trying to just gather crowd support "Am I the only martyr here?" :P. So then they tazer him to comply. While you may argue that they should have tried talking a bit more (though I think it'd be fruitless, I also think that), there was NOTHING wrong with them tazering him. Zero. At that point they were trying to arrest him. He was resisting arrest. This type of tazer burns like hell for about 5 seconds, evidently (I've never been tasered, this is from 3 sources who have) and then you're fine. You can stand up. Fine. Unless he had a medical condition, which has not been mentioned besides a mere possibility anywhere, which I know would be if it were the case. Regardless, it's not the cop's responsibility to ask if you have lead poisoning before shooting you in the shoulder to disable your trigger hand - it's not their responsibility to ask if you're going to be more than normally hurt from a tazer before suppressing you. As it were said, the cops were pretty much in the right. I would have supported them fully had I been there. Thank you to that UCLA student who posted.

12-07-2006, 03:57 PM	#141 (permalink)
Coyote Hunter Upright	I love this \because we MUST sacrifice our liberties to be protected at all times, even if it requires an occasional tasing by the police, or even to have a few people shot and killed as an example to NEVER disregard a policeman's authority. After all, they are the 'only ones'. I learned a long time ago I am the nicest guy around when I get pulled over. Don't mess with the police they will win every time __________________ A man has to know his limitations (Dirty Harry)