UCLA campus police torture student, in the library

  • Thread starter Rach3
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Student
In summary, a disturbing incident occurred at UCLA where campus police repeatedly tasered a Muslim student after he became confrontational when asked for his ID at the library. The altercation was caught on camera and has sparked outrage among students and the public. While the student's behavior was questionable, the police's use of excessive force has been criticized. The incident has raised concerns about police brutality and the safety of students on campus.
  • #36
JasonRox said:
How do you know?

They were trigger happy. Again, that in itself is stupidity.
They weren't "trigger happy". Did you see the video? Did you see how many times they tried to get this moron to cooperate? These officers should be applauded for the amount of restraint they showed.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
JasonRox said:
Kind of contradictory that the U.S. supports freedom while having this Act in place.
Out of curiosity, do you know what is in the PATRIOT Act? (It's actually some freakish acronym and should be capitalized, although I rarely bother, myself.)
 
  • #38
I watched the video.

I doubt any of the watchers agreed with the use of the tasers. Look at them watching in horror!

Yes, I know what the Patriot Act represents.
 
  • #39
JasonRox said:
I doubt any of the watchers agreed with the use of the tasers. Look at them watching in horror!
They're kids, never seen a taser or a stun device, have no idea what they're seeing, this guy is making wild accusations, they're confused.
 
  • #40
The guy doesn't want to stand up, so they taser him? WTF?

Tasers are made to put the guy down. DUH!

The appropriate action would have been to contain the individual, which wasn't too hard since he was on the ground. Then call the local police officers, and they will deal with it.

That's how our campus police is trained. Most of them are retired police officers, which is a good thing because then I know they won't make stupid judgements like use a taser to get someone to stand up. Retarded.
 
  • #41
It's very doubtful that "many" of the watchers even knew as much about what was happening as we know from reading the newspaper.

I agree that the police should've just cuffed him and dragged him out the building, kicking and screaming, but I disagree with the concept that the stun gun is some kind of cruel and unusual and unbelievably torturous device. It was developed specifically to be a much safer, much less damaging replacement for other implements like the good ol' night-stick.

- Warren
 
  • #42
JasonRox said:
Yes, I know what the Patriot Act represents.
That's not the question I asked, is it? I know well enough what it has come to represent, but that's not exactly what it is.

There's a very, very big difference between what it represents to most people and what the Act actually is. You ought to look it up someday.

[edited to add] So should Mr. Tabatabainejad, evidently.
 
Last edited:
  • #43
chroot said:
It's very doubtful that "many" of the watchers even knew as much about what was happening as we know from reading the newspaper.

I agree that the police should've just cuffed him and dragged him out the building, kicking and screaming, but I disagree with the concept that the stun gun is some kind of cruel and unusual and unbelievably torturous device. It was developed specifically to be a much safer, much less damaging replacement for other implements like the good ol' night-stick.

- Warren

Yeah, I don't think the stun gun is cruel, but in the fashion they used it in, it was.

Oh well, I'm sure those police officers lost many friends and respect. That's life in the irrational world.
 
  • #44
twisting_edge said:
That's not the question I asked, is it? I know well enough what it has come to represent, but that's not exactly what it is.

There's a very, very big difference between what it represents to most people and what the Act actually is. You ought to look it up someday.

I did.

It was presented in my Political Science class just last week or maybe the week before.
 
  • #45
It wasn't a taser, it was a stun gun. Christ. The point of the stun gun is not necessarily to "put the guy down." On their lower settings, stun guns are used more for crowd-control, to make people flee, and to provide a deterrent for any further physical confrontation. Have you ever seen the riot gear police use? Many of the riot shields have stun-gun electrodes built into them. The point is not to knock people unconscious; it's to make them run away and stop attacking the police.

At least in the US, there are provisions for certain kinds of private institutions to run their own police forces. Universities are one such example. University police are the "local police," with every right and responsibility of any other police force.

- Warren
 
  • #46
JasonRox said:
It was presented in my Political Science class just last week or maybe the week before.
Then why don't you give me a brief summary of what is in it? I am curious if the version you were "presented" has any resemblance to the reality of what is in the Act.
 
  • #47
chroot said:
It wasn't a taser, it was a stun gun. Christ. The point of the stun gun is not necessarily to "put the guy down." On their lower settings, stun guns are used more for crowd-control, to make people flee, and to provide a deterrent for any further physical confrontation. Have you ever seen the riot gear police use? Many of the riot shields have stun-gun electrodes built into them. The point is not to knock people unconscious; it's to make them run away and stop attacking the police.

At least in the US, there are provisions for certain kinds of private institutions to run their own police forces. Universities are one such example. University police are the "local police," with every right and responsibility of any other police force.

- Warren

http://www.selfdefenseproducts.com/stuninfo.htm

By merely touching a person with the stun gun for a few seconds, he can immobilized for several minutes with no permanent harm.

Makes them runaway? :rolleyes:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #48
The more I think about the logistics of all this use of non-lethal technology, the more I'm convinced that this student was not actually incapacitated at all by the stun gun, and could have gotten up and walked out. That's why the police kept telling him to stand up -- 100 or more times. They're not morons who just didn't realize they had incapacitated him. Nor did he ever say he couldn't get up, or hold up his arms to be picked up. He just layed on the floor, yelling and screaming, occassionally telling the officers to f-off, and still not making any effort to leave.

The more I think about it -- especially after watching the video again -- the more I suspect this person planned this "civil disobedience" to make the greatest possible ordeal. I don't know whether or not it was premeditated, planned weeks in advance, but I think that, once the situation got going, he decided to make a political statement instead of just accepting that he broke and rule and needed to leave. He stretched out his own removal as long as he could, on purpose.

- Warren
 
  • #49
Well...
  1. It was stated that it was a random check. That means that they did not check everyone and nor was it the goal of the rule to check everyone. I wonder how you can "randomly" check an individual student. After all, you have to see him to "randomly" select him for a check. It's therefore based on the officers' judgment, not purely random. I didn't get a clear view of the person who forgot his card, but if he had a visibly middle eastern appearance that could be a reason why he and not someone else was chosen for this "random" check. (Edit: the fact that it was a spot check rather than a check of the entire library means that the student could not have planned the episode)
  2. They used a stun baton, which meant they had to be in very close quarters as well as having the upper hand. A stun baton is a weaker, less dangerous weapon, which typically requires several seconds of contact to effectively immobilize an assailant. Therefore it would have been essentially useless in the case that the student was armed, and only effectively usable when the student is already subdued.
  3. Why did they keep telling him to stand up? Why didn't they just bodily drag him out? If he is not standing up, or had trouble standing up, bodily dragging or carrying him out would have been far more acceptable than continuing to hurt him. I think this is the officers' greatest error in judgment. There is no need to torture an unarmed, physically limp person to get him to move. It did seem sadistic when they kept saying, many times, "stand up!" and then making him scream, instead of just putting him in handcuffs and carrying him outside.
 
  • #50
JasonRox said:
Makes them runaway? :rolleyes:

You do understand that stun guns have different settings, yes? Stun guns, when set to their highest settings, can knock a person unconscious. On their lowest settings, they just hurt and cause involuntary muscular contraction. This person, since he remained conscious and coherent enough to form complete sentences throughout the entire ordeal, was obviously not being subjected to its highest setting.

- Warren
 
  • #51
"I think they are dangerous," said Dr. Zian Tseng, a cardiologist at the University of California, San Francisco. "If you are shocking someone repeatedly, it becomes a bit like Russian roulette. At some point, you may hit that vulnerable period."

http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/9170

I wonder what he thinks about this incident. A little Russian roulette playing basically happened there, and he's from UCLA himself!
 
  • #52
chroot said:
The more I think about the logistics of all this use of non-lethal technology, the more I'm convinced that this student was not actually incapacitated at all by the stun gun, and could have gotten up and walked out. That's why the police kept telling him to stand up -- 100 or more times. They're not morons who just didn't realize they had incapacitated him. Nor did he ever say he couldn't get up, or hold up his arms to be picked up. He just layed on the floor, yelling and screaming, occassionally telling the officers to f-off, and still not making any effort to leave.

The more I think about it -- especially after watching the video again -- the more I suspect this person planned this "civil disobedience" to make the greatest possible ordeal. I don't know whether or not it was premeditated, planned weeks in advance, but I think that, once the situation got going, he decided to make a political statement instead of just accepting that he broke and rule and needed to leave. He stretched out his own removal as long as he could, on purpose.

- Warren

Whatever the reason is for his actions, it does not change the fact that the police acted inappriotely.

Seems to me the police were excited to use their new weapons.
 
  • #53
0rthodontist said:
[*] Why did they keep telling him to stand up? Why didn't they just bodily drag him out? If he is not standing up, or had trouble standing up, bodily dragging or carrying him out would have been far more acceptable than continuing to hurt him. I think this is the officers' greatest error in judgment. There is no need to torture an unarmed, physically limp person to get him to move. It did seem sadistic when they kept saying, many times, "stand up!" and then making him scream, instead of just putting him in handcuffs and carrying him outside.
[/LIST]
They weren't "hurting him". That's the point.
 
  • #54
Seems to me the police were annoyed that the stupid kid wouldn't just get up and leave peacefully. I still agree that they should have just cuffed him and dragged him out, but I don't think the stun gun is nearly as big a deal as everyone seems to believe. Yeah, it hurts. Yeah, it makes you involuntarily scream bloody murder. Would I rather have a stun gun or a billy club used on me? I'd choose the stun gun. Without a doubt.

- Warren
 
  • #55
Evo said:
They weren't "hurting him". That's the point.

Getting stunned doesn't hurt? I find that hard to believe.
 
  • #56
JasonRox said:
Whatever the reason is for his actions, it does not change the fact that the police acted inappriotely.

Seems to me the police were excited to use their new weapons.
We don't know what their guidelines are. As far as we know, they followed guidelines precisely.
 
  • #57
chroot said:
Seems to me the police were annoyed that the stupid kid wouldn't just get up and leave peacefully.

- Warren

Now the world is annoyed by police officers taking the wrong actions.
 
  • #58
JasonRox said:
Getting stunned doesn't hurt? I find that hard to believe.
A moment of pain vs physical injury.
 
  • #59
chroot said:
The more I think about the logistics of all this use of non-lethal technology, the more I'm convinced that this student was not actually incapacitated at all by the stun gun, and could have gotten up and walked out.
According the police, that is precisely what happened.

From the Mercury News article in the first post:
"As the officers attempted to escort him out, he went limp and continued to refuse to cooperate with officers or leave the building," Greenstein said.

Instead, Greenstein said, Tabatabainejad encouraged others at the library to join his resistance. When a crowd began to gather they used the stun gun on him.
So he evidently went limp before the first application of the stun gun.

That is according to the police spokeswoman, I admit. But there'll be witnesses.
 
  • #60
Evo said:
We don't know what their guidelines are. As far as we know, they followed guidelines precisely.

The school is saying what the lawyers told them to say.

Even if they didn't follow the guidelines, they would just say they did.
 
  • #61
twisting_edge said:
According the police, that is precisely what happened.

From the Mercury News article in the first post:

So he evidently went limp before the first application of the stun gun.

That is according to the police spokeswoman, I admit. But there'll be witnesses.

So, carry him out.

Stunning him won't unlimp him.
 
  • #62
twisting_edge said:
So he evidently went limp before the first application of the stun gun.

If this is really true -- and it appears to be so from the video -- I have no sympathy for the kid whatsoever.

- Warren
 
  • #63
JasonRox said:
Stunning him won't unlimp him.

It will for a few milliseconds.

- Warren
 
  • #64
Evo said:
A moment of pain vs physical injury.

I rather not endure that moment of pain, and I'm sure you wouldn't either along with many others.

You make it sound like its nothing.
 
  • #65
chroot said:
It will for a few milliseconds.

- Warren

Yeah, that will get you somewhere. :rolleyes:
 
  • #66
JasonRox said:
You make it sound like its nothing.

When a guy who breaks a very clear rule is told repeatedly "get up or we'll stun you," and the guy is capable of getting up but chooses not to, I generally lose any remaining empathy for him.

- Warren
 
  • #67
JasonRox said:
Even if they didn't follow the guidelines, they would just say they did.
Is that part of what's in the version of the "Patriot Act" you were presented?
 
  • #68
WOW! All you folks think it isn't excessive force to repeatedly zap the dude AFTER he's been handcuffed?
 
  • #69
JasonRox said:
I rather not endure that moment of pain, and I'm sure you wouldn't either along with many others.

You make it sound like its nothing.
I'm also not stupid enough to do something like this. I also don't stick my hands into open flames. Go figure.
 
  • #70
Gokul43201 said:
WOW! All you folks think it isn't excessive force to repeatedly zap the dude AFTER he's been handcuffed?
They're a big step ahead of all those people who believe a stun gun immobilizes the victim even before it is even used.

I still think they should have dragged him out kicking and screaming. There's probably a reason why they did not. I commented on possible reasons earlier.
 

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top