UCLA campus police torture student, in the library


by Rach3
Tags: campus, library, police, student, torture, ucla
0rthodontist
0rthodontist is offline
#307
Nov18-06, 11:32 PM
Sci Advisor
P: 1,253
Quote Quote by Evo
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
Hurkyl is offline
#308
Nov18-06, 11:59 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Hurkyl's Avatar
P: 16,101
Quote Quote by 0rthodontist
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
Evo is offline
#309
Nov19-06, 12:06 AM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 25,967
Quote Quote by 0rthodontist
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
0rthodontist is offline
#310
Nov19-06, 12:16 AM
Sci Advisor
P: 1,253
Quote Quote by Hurkyl
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
0rthodontist is offline
#311
Nov19-06, 12:17 AM
Sci Advisor
P: 1,253
Quote Quote by Evo
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
Evo is offline
#312
Nov19-06, 12:21 AM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 25,967
Quote Quote by 0rthodontist
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
Math Is Hard is offline
#313
Nov19-06, 12:22 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Math Is Hard's Avatar
P: 4,921
Quote Quote by 0rthodontist
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
Cyrus is offline
#314
Nov19-06, 12:34 AM
Cyrus's Avatar
P: 4,780
Quote Quote by Math Is Hard
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
0rthodontist is offline
#315
Nov19-06, 12:40 AM
Sci Advisor
P: 1,253
Quote Quote by Evo
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.
Evo
Evo is offline
#316
Nov19-06, 12:49 AM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 25,967
Quote Quote by 0rthodontist
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.
It doesn't matter, like I said, if he's refusing arrest, they have to take forcible action to remove him. They took the action least likely to get anyone hurt. There is no telling what anyone that crazy is likely to do next. If he became violent, then more aggressive measures would have been needed.

Also, I found a website where his fellow students posted links to some of his essays. I can't link to them because he states on every page they are not for viewing without his permission. This guy has hostile/violent tendencies and has a persecution complex. This guy was just waiting for an opportunity to do something like this.
russ_watters
russ_watters is offline
#317
Nov19-06, 12:52 AM
Mentor
P: 22,010
Orthodontist, how does that matter? Passive resistance is still resistance and still requires force to overcome. Whether it is carrying him out or 'motivating' him to stop resisting, force is required. And when someone is already resisting, you don't know exactly how much they will resist - you don't know if they will start kicking if you go for their legs, for example. He was already belligerant, so it wouldn't be a big step for him to take.

This is not unlike when hippies chain themselves to trees or block roads - they need to be forceably removed from the area. From what I have seen, police are more inclined to use motivation than they are to physically carry people away (sometimes pepper spray, sometimes stun guns/tasers). I'm fine with that. What is your reasoning for not being ok with that? Is it simply that you'd prefer they carry him? Sorry, but it just isn't realistic to have that in the policy. Police need to protect themselves and carrying people away is dangerous - whether it would or wouldn't have resulted in a physical altercation here or not.
0rthodontist
0rthodontist is offline
#318
Nov19-06, 01:03 AM
Sci Advisor
P: 1,253
Quote Quote by russ_watters
What is your reasoning for not being ok with that? Is it simply that you'd prefer they carry him? Sorry, but it just isn't realistic to have that in the policy.
Oh, it's not realistic? Why then is it in the Las Vegas PD's policy, then, along with a lot of other sensible and strongly worded anti-torture rules? (I am using the word "torture" here in the sense of cruelty to those who can't defend themselves, not in the sense of political or military torture for information).

It treats human beings as cattle. It is a very fundamental rule of civilization--maybe the fundamental rule of civilization--that the way to get someone to do something is not to keep physically hurting them until they do it. Frankly it disgusts me. Coercion by pain is the principle behind bullying and political torture. It is the principle behind warfare and spousal abuse. It is called naked aggression.
Math Is Hard
Math Is Hard is offline
#319
Nov19-06, 01:05 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Math Is Hard's Avatar
P: 4,921
Quote Quote by cyrusabdollahi
Bar of soap for you!
agreed. Ten hours in the lab on a Saturday makes me a little grumpy. But still...
chroot
chroot is offline
#320
Nov19-06, 01:15 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
chroot's Avatar
P: 10,424
Quote Quote by 0rthodontist
It is a very fundamental rule of civilization--maybe the fundamental rule of civilization--that the way to get someone to do something is not to keep physically hurting them until they do it.
Is it really any better to tie the person up and then, once bound, physically force them to do what you want them to do? Is that really any more... civilized? This business about "fundamental rules of civilization" sounds pretty much like posturing to me.

Frankly it disgusts me.
Your objections to the stun gun are not rational. They're tied up with all kinds of opinions on irrelevant topics like torture, bullying and other psychological trauma. You've already admitted that this isn't torture, but you seem to be coming back, again and again, to arguments that are almost wholly dependent upon it.

I'd be willing to entertain the notion that indiscriminate use a stun gun could put one on a "slippery slope" leading to more severe examples of police brutality. I agree that significant thoughts and policies are needed to prevent that from happening. I disagree strongly that this is an example of "severe" police brutality, or that it should be compared to torture, even if you wish to pervert the word torture to include anything potentially damaging to the "spirit."

- Warren
0rthodontist
0rthodontist is offline
#321
Nov19-06, 01:28 AM
Sci Advisor
P: 1,253
Quote Quote by chroot
Is it really any better to tie the person up and then, once bound, physically force them to do what you want them to do? Is that really any more... civilized? This business about "fundamental rules of civilization" sounds pretty much like posturing to me.
You don't "force them to do what you want them to do" at all. You concede to them their free will. That's the point. If the man were simply carried outside, he would not have been actually doing anything against his will.

Your objections to the stun gun are not rational. They're tied up with all kinds of opinions on irrelevant topics like torture, bullying and other psychological trauma. You've already admitted that this isn't torture, but you seem to be coming back, again and again, to arguments that are almost wholly dependent upon it.
Look up torture in a dictionary, and you will see that there are several meanings. I agree that this situation is not identical with political torture, but it is fully consistent with other senses of the word torture.

But though this example is not identical with political torture, both this example of torture and political torture are coercion by pain. As are the other things I mentioned.


I am not making any kind of slippery slope argument. It is not that the tasering is likely to lead to worse abuses; the tasering is awful enough as it is. "Drive stun" is a weapon that does not affect the central nervous system and whose only purpose is to cause pain to someone who is immobilized or nearly immobilized.
chroot
chroot is offline
#322
Nov19-06, 01:33 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
chroot's Avatar
P: 10,424
Quote Quote by 0rthodontist
You don't "force them to do what you want them to do" at all. You concede to them their free will. That's the point. If the man were simply carried outside, he would not have been actually doing anything against his will.
You have to be kidding me. Are you really so interested in arguing for the sake of arguing that you are now trying to convince that being tied up and physically dragged out of a building is an example of exercising free will? You have to be kidding!

The student wanted to remain inside the building even though he broke the rule and didn't have his ID. That was his free will!

Sometimes I really get the feeling that you just really, really like arguing, and will continue to change your position as frequently as possible to make sure that you never agree with anyone.

But though this example is not identical with political torture, both this example of torture and political torture are coercion by pain. As are the other things I mentioned.
It's not torture. It's not bullying. It's not psychological trauma. It's a stupid kid who didn't want to follow a rule being made to follow a rule. That's all it is.

- Warren
chroot
chroot is offline
#323
Nov19-06, 01:38 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
chroot's Avatar
P: 10,424
Quote Quote by 0rthodontist
"Drive stun" is a weapon that does not affect the central nervous system and whose only purpose is to cause pain to someone who is immobilized or nearly immobilized.
Wait a minute... weren't you saying that stun guns should never be used against immobilized subjects? The purpose of the drive stun is, indeed, to cause pain -- just enough pain, hopefully, to make the subject think better of his choice to resist the police over something as stupid as a student ID card.

I want you to admit something right here and now:

All of the other options available to the police -- dragging him out bodily, handcuffing him, hitting him with billy clubs, etc. -- presented at least some danger of serious physical injury.

The one course of action available to them which did not present a danger of serious injury (exceptions for pregnant women aside) -- the one which inflicts only pain -- was the one they used. Doesn't that seem most sensible?

- Warren
JasonRox
JasonRox is offline
#324
Nov19-06, 01:38 AM
HW Helper
PF Gold
JasonRox's Avatar
P: 2,328
Quote Quote by chroot
You have to be kidding me. Are you really so interested in arguing for the sake of arguing that you are now trying to convince that being tied up and physically dragged out of a building is an example of exercising free will? You have to be kidding!

The student wanted to remain inside the building even though he broke the rule and didn't have his ID. That was his free will!

Sometimes I really get the feeling that you just really, really like arguing, and will continue to change your position as frequently as possible to make sure that you never agree with anyone.



It's not torture. It's not bullying. It's not psychological trauma. It's a stupid kid who didn't want to follow a rule being made to follow a rule. That's all it is.

- Warren
Anyone who is still standing in this thread likes arguing. I don't see your point with regards to that.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Live on campus or rent an apartment? Academic Guidance 7
UCLA Incident: Was the Police Response Appropriate? General Discussion 28
Campus Crime Statistics General Discussion 7
Law to End Anti-Military Discrimination on Campus Current Events 1
Campus Speech Zones Current Events 4