UCLA campus police torture student, in the library

[0rthodontist]

But the goal of the stunning (for lack of a better term) was not to get the individual to stand up, but rather to get him to stop breaking the law.

Let me put it more bluntly: the goal was to hurt him until he does what they want. They needed to get him out of the library, they did not need to use coercion by pain.

The University Security Guards have the right to deny someone permission into their library without a "trial" or any of those processes based on their discretion. You don't have to convince a judge to order a violent drunk out of your party. Same sort of scenario right?

If you want to PUNISH the violent drunk, you have to convince a judge.

So at that point, he WAS ordered by the law to leave the library and he was trespassing if he didn't.

Maybe he was trespassing and maybe he wasn't--at this point to say that he was trespassing is libel, since he was not convicted.

Of course if he can prove that he was breaking no law and that he didn't have to leave the building, then there should not have been any police involvement, but I think it's pretty obvious in this case that he WAS ordered out of the building and thus by refusing to leave, was definitely breaking a law.

Was possibly breaking a law. In America, the people are innocent until proven guilty by a jury of their peers.

 

[0rthodontist]

EDIT: So for example if he looked to have a body mass comparable to that of steve urkel, I would question the use of a taser. On the other hand if he was a bit bigger, it would be more understandable. Also his demeaner, I think they can probably tell which people are going to kick and scream and which are going to go limp and just let you carry them out without much of a fuss. This guy was screaming DON'T TOUCH ME, so it sounds like he may have been the kicking/screaming type.

He was limp, except when being tasered. He was resisting passively. This is what the police have reported and what you can see from the videos.

 

[dontdisturbmycircles]

If a 250 pound professional boxer decided that he's going to sit in your house for the night since the police are not able to carry him out as he could struggle and free himself from their grasp, then do you think it is fair to taze him? Or what next?

If they tried to carry him out and he resisted and they figured they would not be successful in carrying him out, then do you think that a taser can be used? I do.

According to http://dailybruin.com/news/articles.asp?id=38960 There are differing claims as to how the student reacted. If it turns out that he was not fighting with the officers and it was viable for them to just carry him out, then I do believe you are right and that the use of a taser was unwarranted. If it turns out that he was fighting the officers and the students were a threat to the police (the guy was asking them to join in and fight the officers), then I think the taser was justified to bring the altercation to a calm end.

Anyways it all depends on a lot of information which I don't have, so I do agree that a the American legal system needs to look into this issue.

As to whether or not he was commiting a crime I suppose is debateable. But I do think that it's painfully obvious that he was in this case. It's like if we had a video of OJ killing his wife in a library, I think that at that point, it's not wrong for me to say that he commited the crime.

 

[dontdisturbmycircles]

I couldn't see him as being limp in the video as a computer cubicle was blocking my view at the beginning of the video, how did you edit that out? :tongue:

 

[0rthodontist]

Maybe the fact that he screamed out "I'm not fighting you!" and the fact that all articles, including the one you linked to, indicate the the student was merely limp, might play some role. There is no controversy over what the student was doing: he was going limp and refusing to leave. In fact, the article you linked to also says that he was actually walking towards the door when the officers grabbed him.

Legally, we cannot justifiably say he was trespassing. One might make the argument that since he was a student, he did indeed have the right to be in the library. And it is NOT the police officer's job to punish anyone for any crime.

 

[dontdisturbmycircles]

For now I will agree that the use of the taser was probably not neccesary and that threats to use them on people whom were asking for badge numbers definitely was unjustified. I will not say that the use of the taser was completely wrong, although I think that I am willing to concede that in this case they may have been misused. I did not read many articles and was only really going on what I saw in the video (the one time I watched it). It is easy to come to conclusions on how to deal with a situation on a message board, but if you put yourself into the shoes of the officers. They don't know whether this guy is a student or not/is armed or not/is crazy or not/etc. So caution had to be taken and perhaps that's why they used the taser.

 

[0rthodontist]

I further believe that any use of "drive stun" mode whatsoever is completely unwarranted. It can only be used if the subject is already subdued and stationary so it can be pressed against his skin. It does not cause severe muscle spasms and in fact is not a stun weapon--it only causes severe pain. In other words, it can only be used to torture people who are subdued and not a threat. Also, it stated in one article that the student was originally seated at the BACK of the library. This whole incident takes place at the FRONT of the library. Therefore the student had walked most of the way himself and would have likely walked the rest of the way had the police not "intervened."

 

[Hurkyl]

For now I will agree that the use of the taser was probably not neccesary and that threats to use them on people whom were asking for badge numbers definitely was unjustified.

You mean the big guy who looks like he was badgering the officers at 6:25, and takes a confrontational posture when he was ordered to back away from the scene?

In other words, it can only be used to torture people who are subdued and not a threat.

Wait a minute -- didn't you object when chroot suggested you were equating the police's actions here with torture?

 

[0rthodontist]

Wait a minute -- didn't you object when chroot suggested you were equating the police's actions here with torture?

Sure, it's not exactly the equal of torturing someone for the purpose of extracting information, but as I said it certainly is based on the same principle. There are a number of different meanings of the word "torture." I use the word in the strict sense of "political torture for information" in one case, and in a broader sense of cruelty against those who can't defend themselves in this case. There is no conflict between those two usages.

I really don't see how anyone can take the side of the officers at this point. It's clear that they could have carried him out. It's clear from the video and the police's press statements that the man was not actively resisting, but was instead going limp. It's clear also that he was walking towards the door at the time the police intervened. It's clear that they could only have used "drive stun" on him if he was already essentially immobilized. It's clear that "drive stun" is not a subduing weapon, but an instrument that can only be used to cause pain. So they immobilized a man who was already walking out the door on his own volition, then deliberately hurt him four times, then dragged him out the door.

 

[dontdisturbmycircles]

Hurkyl if it is true that someone took at stance which could be taken as threatening, then the threat from the police was justified (in my oppinion) I really don't have time to look over all this stuff. I'll leave that for the judge. :tongue:. This is an interesting topic though, but it's just too hard to come to a conclusion that is bulletproof enough that holes can't be poked through it. It comes down to your morals, perhaps some people are totally against use of force, and perhaps others are not. Debating who is right and who is wrong in such a case doesn't work. So I accept that some people in this thread think that it was wrong and I agree with them to the extent that I think it is a possibility that the taser was misused. But I also think that there IS a time when a 'drive stun' is appropriate and I also think that it is possible that it was appropriate here.

 

[0rthodontist]

A tool such as "drive stun" can't ever be appropriate.

1. It is not physically disabling
2. It causes excruciating pain
3. It can only be used against an person who is already subdued because applying drive stun is difficult

List me a bunch of instances where a moral person would want to cause excruciating pain to someone who is already subdued.

 

[Hurkyl]

Sure, it's not exactly the equal of torturing someone for the purpose of extracting information, but as I said it certainly is based on the same principle.

Make up your mind. Either call it torture, or stop using the word. I'm going to call you on it every time you try this weasely trick.

I really don't see how anyone can take the side of the officers at this point.

Then maybe you're not as objective as you think you are. I can see both sides; I just don't find your side convincing enough for me to condemn the officers. Also, I have some technical problems:

It's clear also that he was walking towards the door at the time the police intervened.

It sounds more like he stayed put until the cops started coming. He may have started walking out, but decided to stop and argue when the cops reached him and started escorting him out.

t's clear that they could only have used "drive stun" on him if he was already essentially immobilized. It's clear that "drive stun" is not a subduing weapon, but an instrument that can only be used to cause pain. So they immobilized a man

None of this sounds anything at all like what I've been reading about the drive stun. Where are you getting your facts?

then deliberately hurt him four times

Each time, of course, hoping that they would not have to inflict physical force on him. It's not like they're megalomanical super-villians trying to torture someone into telling them the location of the all-powerful artifact.

 

[0rthodontist]

Here is something very interesting about the use of the taser, from the Las Vegas metropolitan police department:
http://www.aele.org/taser-lvmpd.pdf

The TASER® may be used when a subject is displaying active, aggressive or aggravated aggressive resistance to an officer
attempting to conduct legal law enforcement activities (see 6/002.00, Use of Force, for definitions).

The TASER® will not be used:
1. when the officer knows a subject has come in contact with flammable liquids or is in a flammable atmosphere;
2. when the subject is in a position where a fall may cause substantial injury or death;
3. punitively for purposes of coercion, or in an unjustified manner;
4. when a prisoner is handcuffed;
5. to escort or jab individuals;
6. to awaken unconscious or intoxicated individuals; or
7. when the subject is visibly pregnant, unless deadly force is the only other option.

(italics and underlining in the original document; bold added by me)

Everyone who thinks the officers were acting correctly... change your minds now.

 

[chroot]

The drive stun mode is the most appropriate tool to use in crowd-control situations. You don't want to immobilize anyone. You can't restrain anyone. You don't want to permanently injure anyone. You just want to break up a forming riot by nailing anyone you can with the stunner and making them rethink their decision.

- Warren

 

[0rthodontist]

I sure hope you started writing that before my last post.

 

[Hurkyl]

I sure hope you started writing that before my last post.

http://www.taser.com/documents/Columbus_TASER_Study_June_2005a.pdf

Let's have a second opinion, shall we?

The first five-second cycle is used to stop the subject’s
aggressive/resistive behavior. Following the first cycle, officers were trained to evaluate
the subject while giving loud, clear verbal commands to the subject for compliance. If
the subject would not comply, officers were instructed to deliver a second five-second
cycle. The second cycle is for behavior modification to gain compliance if the subject is
still combative or non-compliant.​

(Of course, neither of these PDF's are for the Los Angeles district)

 

[dontdisturbmycircles]

I am actually going to sort of switch sides here as I think I have been convinced that the taser may have been misused in this situation. The more I think about it, I think about the reason for the taser's invention. Mace/tasers/bean bag guns, etc are all ways of protecting police officers without using deadly force. Unless the police officer felt like he was in danger (as can happen in a riot which is why I would agree with its use there) I can't say I agree with its use. Since the police officer is quoted as saying "Get up or I'll taze you again" I draw the conclusion that he is saying that he is tazing the person simply because he won't get up, not because he feels like he is in danger.

I also want to point out that I thought the police men were in danger because perhaps the person was struggling/kicking etc. If what orthodontist is correct, then I agree that the police's ONLY danger was the possible riot by uni students which ONLY was a threat because they used the taser in the first place. If it turns out that he was kicking/being aggressive etc, then I withdraw this post.

 

[0rthodontist]

Hurkyl, that quote refers to "aggressive/resistive behavior." That does not mean "passive/resistive behavior." Aggression in police-use-of-force documents is a particular class of resistance, which is much more of a threat than passive resistance (it is in fact also more of a threat than mere "active" resistance). In any case, by the Las Vegas PD's document the officers were violating no less than three specific "will not" (which is stronger than "should not" as that list comes after the "will not" list in the document) injunctions about the use of the taser. This discussion should be over, unless someone finds a document that is specifically from LAPD and that has far fewer restrictions on taser use.

 

[Hurkyl]

Hurkyl, that quote refers to "aggressive/resistive behavior."

For the first cycle. Read the last sentence of my quote. :tongue:

This discussion should be over

Nuh uh, my PDF can beat up your PDF!

 

[Evo]

The UCPD report.

At approximately 11 p.m. on Tuesday, Nov. 14, a community service officer (CSO) employed by the library was performing a nightly, routine check to insure that all patrons using the library after 11 p.m. are authorized. This is a longstanding library policy to ensure the safety of students during the late night hours. The CSO made an announcement that he would be checking for university identification. When a person, who was later identified as Mostafa Tabatabainejad, refused to provide any identification, the CSO told him that if he refused to do so, he would have to leave the library. Since, after repeated requests, he would neither leave nor show identification, the CSO notified UCPD officers, who responded and asked Tabatabainejad to leave the premises multiple times. He continued to refuse. As the officers attempted to escort him out, he went limp and continued to refuse to cooperate with officers or leave the building.

Tabatabainejab encouraged library patrons to join his resistance. A crowd gathering around the officers and Tabatebainejad's 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.

http://www.ucpd.ucla.edu/ucpd/zippdf/2006/Taser%2011-15-06.pdf

 

[Gelsamel Epsilon]

The video shows the student saying "Here is your patriot act, here is your ****ing abuse of power" then after that he says "You stunned me for no reason, blah blah blah" and after that it's just screaming and "**** off". Hardly inciting resistance, especially compared to the student's reactions to the tasing. I'd say the act of tasing him incited more resistance then him saying "**** off".

If I was there, the patriot act thing would get my attention, but I wouldn't feel like I should resist because he's spewing some dogma.

The way they present it there makes it sound like he said "Help me guys, resist them!".

 

[Evo]

The video shows the student saying "Here is your patriot act, here is your ****ing abuse of power" then after that he says "You stunned me for no reason, blah blah blah" and after that it's just screaming and "**** off". Hardly inciting resistance, especially compared to the student's reactions to the tasing. I'd say the act of tasing him incited more resistance then him saying "**** off".

If I was there, the patriot act thing would get my attention, but I wouldn't feel like I should resist because he's spewing some dogma.

The way they present it there makes it sound like he said "Help me guys, resist them!".

It's a police report, it's not journalism designed to evoke an emotional response. Most of the students that were drawn there by his yelling had no idea what was happening or why.

 

[0rthodontist]

For the first cycle. Read the last sentence of my quote. :tongue:

According to your document, the second cycle would only be administered in the context that there already was an aggressive resistive person who had already warranted a first cycle, the implication being that an aggressive resistive person might become aggressive resistive again.

Anyway, that document is not a real training document, it's a secondhand report of training. It does strike me as a horrible thing, though, that the second cycle is casually referred to as "to gain compliance," which is rightly forbidden by the Las Vegas PD.

It is interesting to read from the article you linked to that as many as four taser cycles (the number in this situation) were only used in less than 4% of all incidents. So against an unarmed, passive resisting subject, the police officers used an amount of taser force that is above the 96th percentile.

From another article it looks like the officers in the library incident were not LAPD, they're UCPD (University of California Police department). So documents from that organization would be the most relevant. Unless UCPD is a subdivision of LAPD.

 

[0rthodontist]

http://www.ucpd.ucla.edu/ucpd/zippdf/2006/Taser_Policies.pdf

This was a link on ucpd's front page. They appear to have few moral compunctions. "Pain compliance"... we should not have to tolerate this in a first world country.

 

[Evo]

http://www.ucpd.ucla.edu/ucpd/zippdf/2006/Taser_Policies.pdf

This was a link on ucpd's front page. They appear to have few moral compunctions. "Pain compliance"... we should not have to tolerate this in a first world country.

I think it is much better than other methods of dealing with people resisting arrest. Less chance of harm to both the criminal and the officers. I'm all for it.

What do you want the officers to do? Just leave and say, oh sorry, you don't want to obey the rules, no problem we'll just leave now, so sorry to have bothered you.

You are not being realistic. When a person refuses to comply, forcible measures must be taken. They used the method least likely to cause injury.

This idiot had REPEATEDLY been given every opportunity to comply and refused. Just what do you suggest the officers do at this point?

 

[dontdisturbmycircles]

Well it does sound like they followed protocol, so I guess the argument is whether or not the protocol is just. I think we could debate over that for years.

I am actually sort of surprised by the term "pain compliance," but I suppose that it does make sense. I would have intuitively thought that the suspect would have to be aggressive to deserve pain, although I guess that if someone is going to try to resist, pain is inevitable in most cases.

 

[0rthodontist]

Just what do you suggest the officers do at this point?

Why are you asking this question? You know full well that my point of view is they should have just handcuffed him and carried him out, preferably using the elevator or a handicap ramp.

Even though UCPD's regulations on taser use are incredibly permissive, even to the point of merely "recommending" that tasers not be used on pregnant women, these officers managed to violate those regulations. Specifically they used the taser while the man was in handcuffs.

Another one of those regulations that I find truly amazing is that they say that using a taser on someone who may fall from a significant height is not strictly prohibited. Using a taser on such a person is lethal force by any reasonable definition of the term! Not strictly prohibited?

 

[Hurkyl]

these officers managed to violate those regulations. Specifically they used the taser while the man was in handcuffs.

Can you tell from the video that the officers did not give additional consideration to the circumstances? I can't.

Using a taser on such a person is lethal force by any reasonable definition of the term! Not strictly prohibited?

Of course not. Police are permitted to use lethal force when the circumstances call for it.

 

[Evo]

Why are you asking this question? You know full well that my point of view is they should have just handcuffed him and carried him out, preferably using the elevator or a handicap ramp.

That could have caused more injury. He could have claimed being manhandled and hurt by the officers. I don't blame them for not wanting to do that.

Even though UCPD's regulations on taser use are incredibly permissive, even to the point of merely "recommending" that tasers not be used on pregnant women, these officers managed to violate those regulations. Specifically they used the taser while the man was in handcuffs.

According to the video, he was not shocked after he was in handcuffs.

 

[0rthodontist]

Of course not. Police are permitted to use lethal force when the circumstances call for it.

But tasers are NOT classified lethal force. Those regulations mean that a UCPD police officer may use lethal force in a situation that demands only a taser.

 

[0rthodontist]

That could have caused more injury. He could have claimed being manhandled and hurt by the officers. I don't blame them for not wanting to do that.

And yet at 3:08, they restrained him by his armpits while tasing him, showing no concern for possibly injury from rough handling. Realistically speaking, they are several officers and he is a passive resister, and there is no considerable reason to believe carrying or dragging him somewhere would cause him any injury.

According to the video, he was not shocked after he was in handcuffs.

Are you aware that the official police report is that he was tased 4 times? He was tased in handcuffs.

 

[Evo]

And yet at 3:08, they restrained him by his armpits while tasing him.


Are you aware that the official police report is that he was tased 4 times? He was tased in handcuffs.

Re-watching it, it looks like he was tazed once immediately after the cuffs, where they repeatedly warned him to stand up or be shocked again. They gave him proper warning. Last week in Missouri, a man in a campus library was hancuffed and he kicked an officer as they tried to take him out. I don't blame the officers for how they handled this.

 

[Math Is Hard]

Are you aware that the official police report is that he was tased 4 times? He was tased in handcuffs.

Are you aware how many of us at UCLA had papers dues last week? F'ing a'hole was holding up our work. If he had thrown that tantrum when I was in the library I would have stabbed him to death with my mechanical pencil.

 

[Cyrus]

Are you aware how many of us at UCLA had papers dues last week? F'ing a'hole was holding up our work. If he had thrown that tantrum when I was in the library I would have stabbed him to death with my mechanical pencil.

Bar of soap for you!

 

[0rthodontist]

Re-watching it, it looks like he was tazed once immediately after the cuffs, where they repeatedly warned him to stand up or be shocked again. They gave him proper warning. Last week in Missouri, a man in a campus library was hancuffed and he kicked an officer as they tried to take him out. I don't blame the officers for how they handled this.

How many times do the police, the onlookers, and other people in this discussion need to say to you, "he was passive resisting, not active resisting" before it sinks in? He was not kicking anyone or making any resistive bodily movements. He was going limp. STOP REPEATING THINGS ABOUT HOW HE COULD HURT THE OFFICERS. HE WAS NOT DOING SO. IT WAS PASSIVE RESISTANCE. END OF STORY ABOUT THAT. I'm sorry for yelling, it's just that I have seen claims of how he "might have" actively resisted so many times it is very exasperating. One thing that all onlookers agree, police included, is that he was passive resisting, not active or aggressive resisting.

I'm not planning to rewatch that thing yet again but I remember from an earlier part of this discussion that you thought there had been exactly 2 tasings, and then he was handcuffed. If you were correct about that, then with the fact that there are 4 tasings, that means there were 2 tasings when he was handcuffed.