<!--quoteo(post=1581425:date=Nov 27 2006, 06:27 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Nov 27 2006, 06:27 PM) [snapback]1581425[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> First one to concede looses? This place is about attempting to defeat opposing combatants now? Curious, I believe this is not part of the stated purpose for these forums. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, when you have a discussion, either one or both sides are persuaded to change view points (one or both effectively loose or win, depending on the context) or neither side budges and both leave the table unchanged (stalemate).
Don't try to twist my words to make me look sadistic or something. It's clear that a discussion requires at least two sides and that each side is motivated to make the other understand something that it apparently does not. This is combat.
Ugh, I digress from this off-topic banter. No more from me.
<!--quoteo(post=1581419:date=Nov 27 2006, 05:04 PM:name=Cxwf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cxwf @ Nov 27 2006, 05:04 PM) [snapback]1581419[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> For comparison, lets say you own some property, Tjosan. Say a house. I come in to your house to visit you, but you dont want me there, so you ask me to leave. Fair enough, its your house, you can make me leave.
So I say "No". I plop down on your couch and just wait. You threaten to call the cops if I don't leave. I insult your mother. You pick up the phone and dial the cops while I listen. I turn on the TV.
A few commercial breaks later, the cops show up at the front door. "You're under arrest for trespassing", they call out. "All right, I'll leave already", I reply. Is that good enough? No, they're going to arrest me anyway. I can complain that I'm willing to leave all I want, but its TOO LATE. I'm already under arrest.
This kid was in that same situation. Sure, he was willing to leave, once the Cops were ready to drag him out. But he was already under arrest for trespassing, and at that point its too late to just "agree to leave". <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is actually like you invited him to your house, but it's getting late and you want him to leave, but he wont leave so you call the cops (say he's going to the bathroom or watching a TV show and only wants to leave once it's done) and the cops arrive as he's walking across your front lawn. He was legally, at some point, allowed to be in the library (ie, in your house).
I've also, in my perusal of this thread, seen lots of 'he was inciting a riot'. This just does not make sense to me. He was being tazered on the ground before any of the students became upset. Only after numerous tazerings did the crowd begin to grow belligerent. In the video you can see, after the first tazering (incoherent screaming) students begin to be drawn towards the action...this doesn't not implicate Mostafa in any way. That's like saying people who stop to look at a car crash are purposely blocking traffic...they may be blocking traffic (growing as a crowd), but it doesn't indicate purpose (intention to stop the officers/riot).
The first request of badge numbers occurs around 1:10, and doesn't indicate belligerence towards the police officers (conceding that the video isn't really capturing anything visually useful, the statement "I want their badge numbers" could either be between students, or a student and a librarian - or potentially with another cop, but that is unlikely). The first (definitive) direct request for information occurs at 2:10 ("Officers, we want your information.") after Mostafa has been tazed <i>twice</i>.
The time from their immediate warnings ("You're gonna get tazed" 3:08; "Stand up, or you're gonna get tazed again." 3:09, overlapping with previous - note that there is an easy to miss call of "Gonna get tazed again" at 2:04) comes only about 5 seconds before the actual tazing (3:12), when I feel the shock of being tazed and noise could potentially drown out this for someone recently tazed.
Tazerings (those labelled [potential], through screaming and student/officer interaction and not through direct visual or auditory evidence, have been deemed by me to be tazerings):
0:31 to 0:35 - "Stand up" (potentially off, the sound of the tazer is inaudible, and the duration can only be discerned through screaming; ranting also begins here, which can make the distinction difficult)
1:47 to 1:50 (potentially 1:51) - "Start complying" (1:46)
3:12 - 3:14 - "Stand up, or you're gonna get tazed again." (Most visually and audibally apparent evidence for tazing)
[potential] 3:51-3:54 - mob yelling prevents recognition of individual speech (Students seem to be saying things like "What you're doing is illegal" but echo makes it difficult to understand; the basis for setting this as a tazing point is one female student's clear shout of "Stop it!"; Timing is also a guess, since Mostafa seems to scream intermittently until about 4:04, but the majority occurs in the indicated timeframe)
[potential] 4:32 - 4:34 - "Just stand up, that's all we want" (4:30) (note that one of the female students shouts "Pick him up!" (4:38); It is also possible that this tazering lasted longer (potentially until 4:39 when Mostafa has a relaxed wheezing/huffing sound), but I choose to belief that the officers have exercised a decent amount of restraint with safe use of the tazer (with respect to the tazering duration, at least).)
It's also very possible there is another tazering a bit later, but crowd rabble makes any kind of auditory differentiation between crowd and Mostafa and other auditory and visual cues impossible for me (or maybe I've just been going through the video too much right now). By itself, 3 tazerings in 2:45 seems excessive to me.
Also, I'm a bit in doubt about Them's application of tazering videos, as there are distinct differences between a 'test' firing and a live firing. All of the participants <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RR3Fa4yZ-G4&NR" target="_blank">here</a> had aid in being put on the ground, all of them knew they were going to be tazed, the tazes were of a 2-3 second duration, and they had a mat to fall on. The situation is similar in <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEABEFR-dgg" target="_blank">this</a> one as well. Your <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEPSOlhHS4Q&NR" target="_blank">laughing tazee</a> is clearly in pain (also aided, and potentially having a safety mat); this akin to someone falling off a bike and injuring their leg but laughing it off. Again, he too is expecting the tazering. Mostafa is faced with other detrimental circumstances (aside from not being aided to the ground, not being prepared for it and not having a safe landing place), <strike>he is handcuffed each time he is tazed (clearest to see in the 3rd tazering above, it's the only time you can clearly see him), he has a hard landing area and he could potentially land on the barbs (check the reporter video for the wounds of them). </strike>
[edit] See Cxwf and my post below that for clarification on struck portions; barbs are not important, and handcuffing is not directly apparent until the 3rd tazering, but highly probably after the first, yet possible before the first. [/edit]
He also yells out about a medical condition, but I put no stock in potential medical conditions (there's also a mental condition which provokes fear and adrenaline when touched, especially unexpected touching, in some people, and I'm also not attributing that to his actions in the first thirty seconds of the video).
Mostafa is obviously not the most cooperative suspect a police officer could hope for, but his actions don't legitimize the use of a tazer in the first place. If they managed to cuff him without the tazer I don't see why they'd even need it to bring him out of the building by carrying, let alone requesting he walk out under his own power. Cries from onlookers also suggest that the incapacitation of Mostafa was obvious, and that the officers should refrain from tazing him and just "pick him up" and carry him out.
Avoiding dealing with the student in the white shirt at the end who seems to be making rather threatening arm movements and the officer's threats of tazing; the actions with Mostafa himself seem to clearly indicate to me an abuse of power.
<!--quoteo(post=1581481:date=Nov 27 2006, 09:36 PM:name=UltimaGecko)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(UltimaGecko @ Nov 27 2006, 09:36 PM) [snapback]1581481[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Mostafa is faced with other detrimental circumstances (aside from not being aided to the ground, not being prepared for it and not having a safe landing place), he is handcuffed each time he is tazed (clearest to see in the 3rd tazering above, it's the only time you can clearly see him), he has a hard landing area and he could potentially land on the barbs (check the reporter video for the wounds of them). <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What leads you to believe he was handcuffed before the first tasing? From the auditory cues leading up to the first tasing, it seems more likely he was free at the time, and they used that to get him down long enough to cuff him.
Actually, 2 questions. Barbs? Didn't the news reports say they were using the Drive Stun option, which doesn't use barbs?
<!--quoteo(post=1581485:date=Nov 27 2006, 09:58 PM:name=Cxwf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cxwf @ Nov 27 2006, 09:58 PM) [snapback]1581485[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Nice analysis. One question though: What leads you to believe he was handcuffed before the first tasing? From the auditory cues leading up to the first tasing, it seems more likely he was free at the time, and they used that to get him down long enough to cuff him.
Actually, 2 questions. Barbs? Didn't the news reports say they were using the Drive Stun option, which doesn't use barbs? <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The handcuffs are a bit sketchy. [
As for the barbs, my mistake, most of the articles I read simply referred to it as a tazer gun, but eventually with some searching it is in fact drive stun tazering (here are some of the ones I looked at).
<a href="http://www.berkeleydaily.org/text/article.cfm?issue=11-24-06&storyID=25701" target="_blank">1</a> <a href="http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/20/1448245" target="_blank">2</a> <a href="http://www.newstarget.com/021154.html" target="_blank">3</a> <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=2662158&page=1" target="_blank">4</a> <a href="http://cbs2.com/local/local_story_319101652.html" target="_blank">5</a> <a href="http://dailybruin.com/news/articles.asp?id=38960" target="_blank">6</a> (often cited by other articles; posted earlier by Talesin)
In fact, that 3rd one does itself say drive stun mode, although more disturbing in that article:
<!--QuoteBegin-newstarget.com+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(newstarget.com)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin--> ...Tabatabainejad is then dragged from the room by two officers, pulled into the foyer of the library, and shocked again before falling down a flight of stairs and being taken from the library...
...The campus police charged Tabatabainejad with resisting/obstructing a police officer, and he was released the next morning with a citation. The official UCPD report does not include the number of officers involved, the number of times Tabatabainejad was stunned with Tasers, nor whether he was read his rights. "Tabatabainejab [sic] encouraged library patrons to join his resistance," said the official report. "A crowd gathering around the officers and Tabatebainejad's [sic] continued resistance made it urgent to remove Tabatabainejad from the area. The officers deemed it necessary to use the Taser in a 'drive stun' capacity."...
...One of the issues under investigation is whether the officers were in compliance with university police rules for using Tasers. The Los Angeles Police Department and Los Angeles County Sheriff's department only allow officers to use their Tasers if the suspect poses a physical threat or is acting combatively. The sheriff's policies specifically say that the Taser cannot be used just to move someone.
The policies of the UCLA police allow them to use Tasers on passive resisters as a "pain compliance technique," said Assistant Chief Jeff Young on Friday. Young said that Tabatabainejad was a passive resister, but admitted that he did not actively resist the officers.
"He was 200 pounds and went limp and was very hard to manage. They were trying to get him on his feet," Young said.
"It is an appalling and traumatically excessive use of force on someone passive-resisting," said Peter Bibring, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, which is also launching an investigation into the incident. "The officers seem so confident in what they are doing. They need to change their policies and training."...
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now aside from the oxymoron 'active passive resistance' it appears he was not cooperating, but he was not threatening the officers in any way, but was stunned anyway to coerce him to move.
The handcuffing seems to be a bit less clear. He's obviously cuffed by the 3rd tazering (you can see him in the video), but whether it is before or after the first tazering I'm not 100% sure. A greater understanding I seem to be getting from stories (which all seem to have copied eachother off of the Daily Bruin, except for 3) is that he was using passive resistance and the officers couldn't be bothered to lift his 200 pound frame, so they just decided to tazer him to get him to move by himself. It also appears that he was being brought out alongside one officer when a second came over and grabbed his arm to help escort him out, which (as you can tell in the video) he did not react well to. The actual act of handcuffing doesn't seem to get brought up.
So, I guess as it stands, disregard my comments on barbs from above, although falling limply from a standing postion still hurts (Redacted, woot!).
It just reminds me of Cops, where you'll sometimes have someone that just goes limp and refuses to be moved, so the officers just drag them to the squad car. I don't believe I've ever seen an episode of cops where they start electrocuting someone resisting in such a manner. More disturbing yet may be the police's neglect of Miranda rights in an arrest (read the articles above), threatening of bystanders and refusal to show ID (above; video; common law).
I think the greatest debate here should probably be about whether Mostafa was trying to incite a riot or some kind of uprising, as this is the officers' main reason for tasering him (to remove him from the crowd and to prevent him from vocally creating resistance). However, the student body that forms around the officers seems more concerned with the repeated tazerings than any of Mostafa's cries of Patriot Act abuse.
<!--quoteo(post=1581419:date=Nov 27 2006, 06:04 PM:name=Cxwf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cxwf @ Nov 27 2006, 06:04 PM) [snapback]1581419[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> For comparison, lets say you own some property, Tjosan. Say a house. I come in to your house to visit you, but you dont want me there, so you ask me to leave. Fair enough, its your house, you can make me leave.
So I say "No". I plop down on your couch and just wait. You threaten to call the cops if I don't leave. I insult your mother. You pick up the phone and dial the cops while I listen. I turn on the TV.
A few commercial breaks later, the cops show up at the front door. "You're under arrest for trespassing", they call out. "All right, I'll leave already", I reply. Is that good enough? No, they're going to arrest me anyway. I can complain that I'm willing to leave all I want, but its TOO LATE. I'm already under arrest.
This kid was in that same situation. Sure, he was willing to leave, once the Cops were ready to drag him out. But he was already under arrest for trespassing, and at that point its too late to just "agree to leave". <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First of all it is a public library. Sure they have rules after 11 pm, but he didn't break, in he was there to begin with fully legaly. He did however overstay his welcome. If it was my house and I invited someone to dinner who refused to leave afterwards and I for some unexplicable reason called the police, I would neither expect them to, nor accept it if they tried to manhandle him no matter how vocal or argumentative he was before or after the police arrived. I'd throw the police out, or better yet get physical with them to defend the man and get arrested myself. It does not matter if he was ready to leave just because the police were going to drag him out. It doesn't matter if he was going to stay a week otherwise. That is no reason to use physical violence.
Secondly he wasn't being arrested. He was being escorted out. There is a very important difference between getting arrested, and being escorted out.
Now it is my belief that institutionalized violence is about the worst kind there is. Unfortunately we have to grant certain groups in our society the ability to use violence if needed withotu reprecussions, to stave off worse acts of violence. Choose the lesser of two evils so to speak. However, we only give these people that leeway under the condition that they only use it when absolutely necessary. Talking your way out of the situation must ALWAYS be the first approach.
So now if someone is being a jerk, perhaps even abusive, and you have a job to either escort them away or arrest them, either one, and you can accomplish that peacefully without any physical harm come to anyone, then it is your obligation to do so.
This man was being a jerk, he might even have shoved a library employee, but he was willing to go peacefully when the police arrived. It is their obligation to keep it peaceful if possible, and they failed this. It is incredibly important to preserve a free and democratic society to take any acts of violence very serious, especially violence by people in a position of authority, because they do not only have an obligation to themselves and the other party, they have an obligation to the society as a whole who trust in them to only use the abilities granted to them if absolutely necessary.
Police do not have the right to use violence they have an obligation to do so if necessary, under any other circumstances they must be as limited as the rest of the society in what is appropriate for them to do. This is a cornerstone of any democratic and free society.
EpidemicDark Force GorgeJoin Date: 2003-06-29Member: 17781Members
edited November 2006
<!--quoteo(post=1581283:date=Nov 27 2006, 03:58 AM:name=Rob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rob @ Nov 27 2006, 03:58 AM) [snapback]1581283[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> In any case, since paradoxes do exist in conventional logic, "This statement is a lie," it's pretty good proof that conventional logic can't be used for all circumstances. Therefore, things can sometimes be both true and false. This happens all the time in nature. It's both hot and cold outside; we call it warm. It's both black and white; we call it gray. Conventional logical has room for none of these concepts. Anyway, if you want to discuss the merits of conventional logic, I'd be happy to do so in another thread. It's off topic in here. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It's only a paradox if the lie is the statement, rather than if this statement is referring to itself <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" /> kapwned on semantics, I never thought I'd get this low. Ok, I'm just teasing you, ignore this post.
<!--quoteo(post=1580831:date=Nov 26 2006, 07:36 AM:name=Talesin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Talesin @ Nov 26 2006, 07:36 AM) [snapback]1580831[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Uh, no. Those were Campus Police, not 'city'. Colleges out here have 'police' departments on-site. They can't carry firearms without a civilian-grade permit, though they can much more easily be certified for pepper spray or taser permits during the course of duty. They can also make arrests. These aren't your 'mall cops', they hover somewhere between rent-a-pigs and actual police officers, and have worse ego problems than a sheriff in a truckstop town frequented by the highway patrol.
Again. This was an outright overreaction and blatant abuse of power/authority. I can only hope that the officers responsible will be on the chopping block ASAP, as they rightly should. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wow, you call for a chopping block when you don't even recognize the fact the kid in the course of all this decided to try to start a riot when he didn't get his way. Then again who cares as long as the "rent a pigs" are punished. Am I right?
Personally, I'm glad they didn't use pepper spray since there was a crowd of people around the guy. Meanwhile I won't project my views on what happened that's the courts decision. Since neither you or me can advocate for the kid. I'd suggest taking a more skeptical look at the situation (you didn't see his actions post what you saw on the camera.)
Here in Washington State, our campus police pretty much call the Seattle area metro police if they have to bring the nightstick to someone.
That_Annoying_KidSire of TitlesJoin Date: 2003-03-01Member: 14175Members, Constellation
Yus, I know I come late but I wanted to make a thread on this specific topic for some time now. Figures people beat me to the punch.
I hate police, they have lied to me twice in the past, but I love playing devils advocate in this particular instance.
IMHO there is absolutely no abuse of power going on. The video has garnered national attention. But who cares what the public thinks, the only thing that matters is what the judges have to say. I think it will go something like this. Said student was in library after 11:00 and failed to meet a challenge that was issued by a "cso" (renta cop) the student did not have ID, and the way he acted prompted the CSO to go up the chain of command and get some real cops. The real cops detained the student as he was leaving by grabbing his arm. Said student went right to increasing vocal and physical resisting. The officers had probable cause to detain the person because they had failed the random check for ID. When the student got more and more irate they tased him. When your on the ground and the officer tells you to stand up, the correct response is to get up or attempt to do so. Not say ###### YOU at the cops. Lying on the ground saying "I'm not resisting" is resisting. Furthermore shouting out how this is a result off the patriot act while being detained just adds TONS of credibility to said students claims...
If you get free rides on the bus due to a reg card, and try and get on the bus without the reg card, do you think you will get on?
When your detained its your job to s2, the time for making a stink about it is at the court date. The officers only job is to follow the law, the courts have to interpret it.
I see you Talesin!
The cso is a rent a cop, the UC police are actually state troopers. UCD cops can arrest someone in LA and be legally justified in doing so, they just chose not to use there immense power and actually stay on campus.
The officers only tased him after giving direct lawfull orders, and as a citizen of the US you HAVE to respond to direct lawfull orders givin by peace officers [Said student was charged with resisting and it will stick] GET OFF OF ME GET OFF OF ME LET GO OF ME is not the proper way to respond to an officer grabbing your arm.
I looked at what the seargent of the police said about it, and he basically talked but said nothing, but the slant he gave it was "the officers did their job, and I feel politically comfortable in making this assertion that we will look into it" If some officers took illegal action the sarge would already have been in damage control, but he merely deflected the questions posed. If the sarge had said "officers are on paid adminsistrative leave" then that would be the first inkling.
Many people I've talked to just tell me how egreigous and henious the actions of the police were. I look at it and see a clear cut case of resisting arrest, and a "good stop" (officer grabbing arm after student had defied cso) Defying the cso is what gives the cops the right to stop the guy, and him shouting and not obeying direct lawfull order is the reason he got tased. repeatedly. He's gonna pay the citation for resisiting arrest, and he's *not* gonna win any lawsuits.
Sorry if my post is discombobulated, I kinda ping ponged around it, and was racing the clock in class to catch bus and doing multiple other things. I will come back and actually spend some time trying to sound rational.
Private_ColemanPhD in Video GamesJoin Date: 2002-11-07Member: 7510Members
edited November 2006
Without being able to see what is happening before he is tasered it is impossible to say whether he deserved it or not. However, judging from the audio it is <i>likely</i> that the student has already physically resisted or will physically resist arrest. I see nothing wrong with using the taser less lethal weapon in potentially risky situations such as this, if that is what has occured. The police would not know if he is in possession of any weapons and therefore the taser is used for safety. Wrestling with him puts the officers at risk and breaking out the nightsticks is more dangerous for both the officers and the student than a taser. It can then be concluded that the taser is the safest choice for both parties.
However, use of the taser was not required more than once. Once the student was shot it would not have been difficult to search him for weapons and take him into custody. The police officers should have; once securing the student, complied with the bystander's requests for badge numbers.
Whilst it is unfortunate that the officers did not handle the situation in the best way, the first shot fired was likely to have been a safety precaution and I see nothing wrong with it's use in this situation.
Whilst it may seem obvious to some, you should always comply with police orders. Doing so will most likely help you both during the incident and later on should you be arrested. This also gives the officer no reason to want to hurt you.
Comments
First one to concede looses? This place is about attempting to defeat opposing combatants now? Curious, I believe this is not part of the stated purpose for these forums.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, when you have a discussion, either one or both sides are persuaded to change view points (one or both effectively loose or win, depending on the context) or neither side budges and both leave the table unchanged (stalemate).
Don't try to twist my words to make me look sadistic or something. It's clear that a discussion requires at least two sides and that each side is motivated to make the other understand something that it apparently does not. This is combat.
Ugh, I digress from this off-topic banter. No more from me.
For comparison, lets say you own some property, Tjosan. Say a house. I come in to your house to visit you, but you dont want me there, so you ask me to leave. Fair enough, its your house, you can make me leave.
So I say "No". I plop down on your couch and just wait. You threaten to call the cops if I don't leave. I insult your mother. You pick up the phone and dial the cops while I listen. I turn on the TV.
A few commercial breaks later, the cops show up at the front door. "You're under arrest for trespassing", they call out. "All right, I'll leave already", I reply. Is that good enough? No, they're going to arrest me anyway. I can complain that I'm willing to leave all I want, but its TOO LATE. I'm already under arrest.
This kid was in that same situation. Sure, he was willing to leave, once the Cops were ready to drag him out. But he was already under arrest for trespassing, and at that point its too late to just "agree to leave".
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is actually like you invited him to your house, but it's getting late and you want him to leave, but he wont leave so you call the cops (say he's going to the bathroom or watching a TV show and only wants to leave once it's done) and the cops arrive as he's walking across your front lawn. He was legally, at some point, allowed to be in the library (ie, in your house).
I've also, in my perusal of this thread, seen lots of 'he was inciting a riot'. This just does not make sense to me. He was being tazered on the ground before any of the students became upset. Only after numerous tazerings did the crowd begin to grow belligerent. In the video you can see, after the first tazering (incoherent screaming) students begin to be drawn towards the action...this doesn't not implicate Mostafa in any way. That's like saying people who stop to look at a car crash are purposely blocking traffic...they may be blocking traffic (growing as a crowd), but it doesn't indicate purpose (intention to stop the officers/riot).
The first request of badge numbers occurs around 1:10, and doesn't indicate belligerence towards the police officers (conceding that the video isn't really capturing anything visually useful, the statement "I want their badge numbers" could either be between students, or a student and a librarian - or potentially with another cop, but that is unlikely). The first (definitive) direct request for information occurs at 2:10 ("Officers, we want your information.") after Mostafa has been tazed <i>twice</i>.
The time from their immediate warnings ("You're gonna get tazed" 3:08; "Stand up, or you're gonna get tazed again." 3:09, overlapping with previous - note that there is an easy to miss call of "Gonna get tazed again" at 2:04) comes only about 5 seconds before the actual tazing (3:12), when I feel the shock of being tazed and noise could potentially drown out this for someone recently tazed.
Tazerings (those labelled [potential], through screaming and student/officer interaction and not through direct visual or auditory evidence, have been deemed by me to be tazerings):
0:31 to 0:35 - "Stand up"
(potentially off, the sound of the tazer is inaudible, and the duration can only be discerned through screaming; ranting also begins here, which can make the distinction difficult)
1:47 to 1:50 (potentially 1:51) - "Start complying" (1:46)
3:12 - 3:14 - "Stand up, or you're gonna get tazed again."
(Most visually and audibally apparent evidence for tazing)
[potential] 3:51-3:54 - mob yelling prevents recognition of individual speech
(Students seem to be saying things like "What you're doing is illegal" but echo makes it difficult to understand; the basis for setting this as a tazing point is one female student's clear shout of "Stop it!"; Timing is also a guess, since Mostafa seems to scream intermittently until about 4:04, but the majority occurs in the indicated timeframe)
[potential] 4:32 - 4:34 - "Just stand up, that's all we want" (4:30)
(note that one of the female students shouts "Pick him up!" (4:38); It is also possible that this tazering lasted longer (potentially until 4:39 when Mostafa has a relaxed wheezing/huffing sound), but I choose to belief that the officers have exercised a decent amount of restraint with safe use of the tazer (with respect to the tazering duration, at least).)
It's also very possible there is another tazering a bit later, but crowd rabble makes any kind of auditory differentiation between crowd and Mostafa and other auditory and visual cues impossible for me (or maybe I've just been going through the video too much right now). By itself, 3 tazerings in 2:45 seems excessive to me.
Also, I'm a bit in doubt about Them's application of tazering videos, as there are distinct differences between a 'test' firing and a live firing. All of the participants <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RR3Fa4yZ-G4&NR" target="_blank">here</a> had aid in being put on the ground, all of them knew they were going to be tazed, the tazes were of a 2-3 second duration, and they had a mat to fall on. The situation is similar in <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEABEFR-dgg" target="_blank">this</a> one as well. Your <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEPSOlhHS4Q&NR" target="_blank">laughing tazee</a> is clearly in pain (also aided, and potentially having a safety mat); this akin to someone falling off a bike and injuring their leg but laughing it off. Again, he too is expecting the tazering. Mostafa is faced with other detrimental circumstances (aside from not being aided to the ground, not being prepared for it and not having a safe landing place), <strike>he is handcuffed each time he is tazed (clearest to see in the 3rd tazering above, it's the only time you can clearly see him), he has a hard landing area and he could potentially land on the barbs (check the reporter video for the wounds of them). </strike>
[edit] See Cxwf and my post below that for clarification on struck portions; barbs are not important, and handcuffing is not directly apparent until the 3rd tazering, but highly probably after the first, yet possible before the first. [/edit]
He also yells out about a medical condition, but I put no stock in potential medical conditions (there's also a mental condition which provokes fear and adrenaline when touched, especially unexpected touching, in some people, and I'm also not attributing that to his actions in the first thirty seconds of the video).
Mostafa is obviously not the most cooperative suspect a police officer could hope for, but his actions don't legitimize the use of a tazer in the first place. If they managed to cuff him without the tazer I don't see why they'd even need it to bring him out of the building by carrying, let alone requesting he walk out under his own power. Cries from onlookers also suggest that the incapacitation of Mostafa was obvious, and that the officers should refrain from tazing him and just "pick him up" and carry him out.
Avoiding dealing with the student in the white shirt at the end who seems to be making rather threatening arm movements and the officer's threats of tazing; the actions with Mostafa himself seem to clearly indicate to me an abuse of power.
<!--quoteo(post=1581481:date=Nov 27 2006, 09:36 PM:name=UltimaGecko)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(UltimaGecko @ Nov 27 2006, 09:36 PM) [snapback]1581481[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Mostafa is faced with other detrimental circumstances (aside from not being aided to the ground, not being prepared for it and not having a safe landing place), he is handcuffed each time he is tazed (clearest to see in the 3rd tazering above, it's the only time you can clearly see him), he has a hard landing area and he could potentially land on the barbs (check the reporter video for the wounds of them). <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What leads you to believe he was handcuffed before the first tasing? From the auditory cues leading up to the first tasing, it seems more likely he was free at the time, and they used that to get him down long enough to cuff him.
Actually, 2 questions. Barbs? Didn't the news reports say they were using the Drive Stun option, which doesn't use barbs?
Nice analysis. One question though:
What leads you to believe he was handcuffed before the first tasing? From the auditory cues leading up to the first tasing, it seems more likely he was free at the time, and they used that to get him down long enough to cuff him.
Actually, 2 questions. Barbs? Didn't the news reports say they were using the Drive Stun option, which doesn't use barbs?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The handcuffs are a bit sketchy. [
As for the barbs, my mistake, most of the articles I read simply referred to it as a tazer gun, but eventually with some searching it is in fact drive stun tazering (here are some of the ones I looked at).
<a href="http://www.berkeleydaily.org/text/article.cfm?issue=11-24-06&storyID=25701" target="_blank">1</a> <a href="http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/20/1448245" target="_blank">2</a> <a href="http://www.newstarget.com/021154.html" target="_blank">3</a> <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=2662158&page=1" target="_blank">4</a> <a href="http://cbs2.com/local/local_story_319101652.html" target="_blank">5</a> <a href="http://dailybruin.com/news/articles.asp?id=38960" target="_blank">6</a> (often cited by other articles; posted earlier by Talesin)
In fact, that 3rd one does itself say drive stun mode, although more disturbing in that article:
<!--QuoteBegin-newstarget.com+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(newstarget.com)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin--> ...Tabatabainejad is then dragged from the room by two officers, pulled into the foyer of the library, and shocked again before falling down a flight of stairs and being taken from the library...
...The campus police charged Tabatabainejad with resisting/obstructing a police officer, and he was released the next morning with a citation. The official UCPD report does not include the number of officers involved, the number of times Tabatabainejad was stunned with Tasers, nor whether he was read his rights. "Tabatabainejab [sic] encouraged library patrons to join his resistance," said the official report. "A crowd gathering around the officers and Tabatebainejad's [sic] continued resistance made it urgent to remove Tabatabainejad from the area. The officers deemed it necessary to use the Taser in a 'drive stun' capacity."...
...One of the issues under investigation is whether the officers were in compliance with university police rules for using Tasers. The Los Angeles Police Department and Los Angeles County Sheriff's department only allow officers to use their Tasers if the suspect poses a physical threat or is acting combatively. The sheriff's policies specifically say that the Taser cannot be used just to move someone.
The policies of the UCLA police allow them to use Tasers on passive resisters as a "pain compliance technique," said Assistant Chief Jeff Young on Friday. Young said that Tabatabainejad was a passive resister, but admitted that he did not actively resist the officers.
"He was 200 pounds and went limp and was very hard to manage. They were trying to get him on his feet," Young said.
"It is an appalling and traumatically excessive use of force on someone passive-resisting," said Peter Bibring, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, which is also launching an investigation into the incident. "The officers seem so confident in what they are doing. They need to change their policies and training."...
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now aside from the oxymoron 'active passive resistance' it appears he was not cooperating, but he was not threatening the officers in any way, but was stunned anyway to coerce him to move.
The handcuffing seems to be a bit less clear. He's obviously cuffed by the 3rd tazering (you can see him in the video), but whether it is before or after the first tazering I'm not 100% sure. A greater understanding I seem to be getting from stories (which all seem to have copied eachother off of the Daily Bruin, except for 3) is that he was using passive resistance and the officers couldn't be bothered to lift his 200 pound frame, so they just decided to tazer him to get him to move by himself. It also appears that he was being brought out alongside one officer when a second came over and grabbed his arm to help escort him out, which (as you can tell in the video) he did not react well to. The actual act of handcuffing doesn't seem to get brought up.
So, I guess as it stands, disregard my comments on barbs from above, although falling limply from a standing postion still hurts (Redacted, woot!).
It just reminds me of Cops, where you'll sometimes have someone that just goes limp and refuses to be moved, so the officers just drag them to the squad car. I don't believe I've ever seen an episode of cops where they start electrocuting someone resisting in such a manner. More disturbing yet may be the police's neglect of Miranda rights in an arrest (read the articles above), threatening of bystanders and refusal to show ID (above; video; common law).
I think the greatest debate here should probably be about whether Mostafa was trying to incite a riot or some kind of uprising, as this is the officers' main reason for tasering him (to remove him from the crowd and to prevent him from vocally creating resistance). However, the student body that forms around the officers seems more concerned with the repeated tazerings than any of Mostafa's cries of Patriot Act abuse.
For comparison, lets say you own some property, Tjosan. Say a house. I come in to your house to visit you, but you dont want me there, so you ask me to leave. Fair enough, its your house, you can make me leave.
So I say "No". I plop down on your couch and just wait. You threaten to call the cops if I don't leave. I insult your mother. You pick up the phone and dial the cops while I listen. I turn on the TV.
A few commercial breaks later, the cops show up at the front door. "You're under arrest for trespassing", they call out. "All right, I'll leave already", I reply. Is that good enough? No, they're going to arrest me anyway. I can complain that I'm willing to leave all I want, but its TOO LATE. I'm already under arrest.
This kid was in that same situation. Sure, he was willing to leave, once the Cops were ready to drag him out. But he was already under arrest for trespassing, and at that point its too late to just "agree to leave".
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First of all it is a public library. Sure they have rules after 11 pm, but he didn't break, in he was there to begin with fully legaly. He did however overstay his welcome. If it was my house and I invited someone to dinner who refused to leave afterwards and I for some unexplicable reason called the police, I would neither expect them to, nor accept it if they tried to manhandle him no matter how vocal or argumentative he was before or after the police arrived. I'd throw the police out, or better yet get physical with them to defend the man and get arrested myself. It does not matter if he was ready to leave just because the police were going to drag him out. It doesn't matter if he was going to stay a week otherwise. That is no reason to use physical violence.
Secondly he wasn't being arrested. He was being escorted out. There is a very important difference between getting arrested, and being escorted out.
Now it is my belief that institutionalized violence is about the worst kind there is. Unfortunately we have to grant certain groups in our society the ability to use violence if needed withotu reprecussions, to stave off worse acts of violence. Choose the lesser of two evils so to speak. However, we only give these people that leeway under the condition that they only use it when absolutely necessary. Talking your way out of the situation must ALWAYS be the first approach.
So now if someone is being a jerk, perhaps even abusive, and you have a job to either escort them away or arrest them, either one, and you can accomplish that peacefully without any physical harm come to anyone, then it is your obligation to do so.
This man was being a jerk, he might even have shoved a library employee, but he was willing to go peacefully when the police arrived. It is their obligation to keep it peaceful if possible, and they failed this. It is incredibly important to preserve a free and democratic society to take any acts of violence very serious, especially violence by people in a position of authority, because they do not only have an obligation to themselves and the other party, they have an obligation to the society as a whole who trust in them to only use the abilities granted to them if absolutely necessary.
Police do not have the right to use violence they have an obligation to do so if necessary, under any other circumstances they must be as limited as the rest of the society in what is appropriate for them to do. This is a cornerstone of any democratic and free society.
In any case, since paradoxes do exist in conventional logic, "This statement is a lie," it's pretty good proof that conventional logic can't be used for all circumstances. Therefore, things can sometimes be both true and false. This happens all the time in nature. It's both hot and cold outside; we call it warm. It's both black and white; we call it gray. Conventional logical has room for none of these concepts. Anyway, if you want to discuss the merits of conventional logic, I'd be happy to do so in another thread. It's off topic in here.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's only a paradox if the lie is the statement, rather than if this statement is referring to itself <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" /> kapwned on semantics, I never thought I'd get this low. Ok, I'm just teasing you, ignore this post.
Uh, no. Those were Campus Police, not 'city'. Colleges out here have 'police' departments on-site. They can't carry firearms without a civilian-grade permit, though they can much more easily be certified for pepper spray or taser permits during the course of duty. They can also make arrests. These aren't your 'mall cops', they hover somewhere between rent-a-pigs and actual police officers, and have worse ego problems than a sheriff in a truckstop town frequented by the highway patrol.
Again. This was an outright overreaction and blatant abuse of power/authority. I can only hope that the officers responsible will be on the chopping block ASAP, as they rightly should.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wow, you call for a chopping block when you don't even recognize the fact the kid in the course of all this decided to try to start a riot when he didn't get his way. Then again who cares as long as the "rent a pigs" are punished. Am I right?
Personally, I'm glad they didn't use pepper spray since there was a crowd of people around the guy. Meanwhile I won't project my views on what happened that's the courts decision. Since neither you or me can advocate for the kid. I'd suggest taking a more skeptical look at the situation (you didn't see his actions post what you saw on the camera.)
Here in Washington State, our campus police pretty much call the Seattle area metro police if they have to bring the nightstick to someone.
I hate police, they have lied to me twice in the past, but I love playing devils advocate in this particular instance.
IMHO there is absolutely no abuse of power going on. The video has garnered national attention. But who cares what the public thinks, the only thing that matters is what the judges have to say. I think it will go something like this. Said student was in library after 11:00 and failed to meet a challenge that was issued by a "cso" (renta cop) the student did not have ID, and the way he acted prompted the CSO to go up the chain of command and get some real cops. The real cops detained the student as he was leaving by grabbing his arm. Said student went right to increasing vocal and physical resisting. The officers had probable cause to detain the person because they had failed the random check for ID. When the student got more and more irate they tased him. When your on the ground and the officer tells you to stand up, the correct response is to get up or attempt to do so. Not say ###### YOU at the cops. Lying on the ground saying "I'm not resisting" is resisting. Furthermore shouting out how this is a result off the patriot act while being detained just adds TONS of credibility to said students claims...
If you get free rides on the bus due to a reg card, and try and get on the bus without the reg card, do you think you will get on?
When your detained its your job to s2, the time for making a stink about it is at the court date. The officers only job is to follow the law, the courts have to interpret it.
I see you Talesin!
The cso is a rent a cop, the UC police are actually state troopers. UCD cops can arrest someone in LA and be legally justified in doing so, they just chose not to use there immense power and actually stay on campus.
The officers only tased him after giving direct lawfull orders, and as a citizen of the US you HAVE to respond to direct lawfull orders givin by peace officers [Said student was charged with resisting and it will stick]
GET OFF OF ME GET OFF OF ME LET GO OF ME is not the proper way to respond to an officer grabbing your arm.
I looked at what the seargent of the police said about it, and he basically talked but said nothing, but the slant he gave it was "the officers did their job, and I feel politically comfortable in making this assertion that we will look into it"
If some officers took illegal action the sarge would already have been in damage control, but he merely deflected the questions posed. If the sarge had said "officers are on paid adminsistrative leave" then that would be the first inkling.
Many people I've talked to just tell me how egreigous and henious the actions of the police were. I look at it and see a clear cut case of resisting arrest, and a "good stop" (officer grabbing arm after student had defied cso) Defying the cso is what gives the cops the right to stop the guy, and him shouting and not obeying direct lawfull order is the reason he got tased. repeatedly. He's gonna pay the citation for resisiting arrest, and he's *not* gonna win any lawsuits.
Sorry if my post is discombobulated, I kinda ping ponged around it, and was racing the clock in class to catch bus and doing multiple other things. I will come back and actually spend some time trying to sound rational.
However, use of the taser was not required more than once. Once the student was shot it would not have been difficult to search him for weapons and take him into custody. The police officers should have; once securing the student, complied with the bystander's requests for badge numbers.
Whilst it is unfortunate that the officers did not handle the situation in the best way, the first shot fired was likely to have been a safety precaution and I see nothing wrong with it's use in this situation.
Whilst it may seem obvious to some, you should always comply with police orders. Doing so will most likely help you both during the incident and later on should you be arrested. This also gives the officer no reason to want to hurt you.
1) Hay Chrono what is up?