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.
  • #141
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20061116-015646-6449r
"He continued to refuse," the statement said. "As the officers attempted to escort him out, he went limp and continued to refuse to cooperate with officers or leave the building."

How does going limp (not kicking and flailing) constitute "active resistance"?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #142
0rthodontist said:
I'm not sure what part of the video TE is referring to where the officers carry him.
It's the same one Evo keeps analyzing, the only case where he clearly appears to be zapped while he was handcuffed.

Before that, when he was definitely zapped, he also wasn't handcuffed. After that, he is definitely handcuffed, but doesn't appear to have been zapped.

There's that one juncture where he is definitely handcuffed, and sure reacts like he is being zapped, but neither of the policemen anywhere near him has a free hand to zap him with.

It's at about 3:15 in the video. Start at 3:08.
 
  • #143
twisting_edge said:
Before that, when he was definitely zapped, he also wasn't handcuffed.
You believe he wan't cuffed during the second zapping at 1:48? Also, if he was only zapped twice, do you think the police are likely to say they zapped him "multiple times"?

There's that one juncture where he is definitely handcuffed, and sure reacts like he is being zapped, but neither of the policemen anywhere near him has a free hand to zap him with.
You can see neither the right hand of the officer on the right side, nor the left hand of the officer on the left...both appear to be near the front of the student.
 
Last edited:
  • #144
Gokul43201 said:
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20061116-015646-6449r


How does going limp (not kicking and flailing) constitute "active resistance"?
OK, you weren't around in the 70's. "Going limp" created a real problem for police. Carrying "dead weight" was harder than taking someone out. I'm surprised that you don't know this.
 
  • #145
Of course it's resistance? Active though? I don't know. Ask American law, or something like that.
 
  • #146
0rthodontist said:
Okay, well it seems likely that he could be carried without too much danger, though care should be taken. I'm not sure what part of the video TE is referring to where the officers carry him. Maybe I am looking at the wrong things but it looks to me like both officers (if there really are 2--it's hard to tell and the news articles don't seem to say) seem to be just standing around much of the time.
As opposed to actually beating him up?

The guy is a jackass. He begged for the encounter. He was wrong the whole time. Why is there even a discussion?
 
  • #147
Evo said:
OK, you weren't around in the 70's. "Going limp" created a real problem for police. Carrying "dead weight" was harder than taking someone out. I'm surprised that you don't know this.
That doesn't answer how this makes the person an active resister.

From Russ' link:

http://www.pti.uiuc.edu/news_articles/lawonline/useofforcequide.htm

USE OF FORCE
Use of Force Guidelines - Adopted Dec 8, 1998

PASSIVE RESISTER: Is a person who exhibits no resistive movement in response to verbal or other direction.

ACTIVE RESISTER: Is a person who exhibits resistive movement to avoid physical control.

Sounds to me like "going limp" qualifies you as a passive resister.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #148
I don't see how the guy being a jackass, begging for the encounter, or being wrong is evidence for the police doing the right thing.
 
  • #149
Gokul43201 said:
From Russ' link:

http://www.pti.uiuc.edu/news_articles/lawonline/useofforcequide.htm



Sounds to me like "going limp" qualifies you as a passive resister.
OK, then if you move them and they start kicking and screaming, as they often do, what then?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #150
Evo said:
The guy is a jackass. He begged for the encounter. He was wrong the whole time. Why is there even a discussion?
Because we're not arguing whether or not the guy is a jackass. Bringing that up is immaterial. We're discussing whether or not the police appear to have used justifiable force.
 
Last edited:
  • #151
Gelsamel Epsilon said:
I don't see how the guy being a jackass, begging for the encounter, or being wrong is evidence for the police doing the right thing.
:confused: :rofl: Wan't to explain that?
 
  • #152
Evo said:
OK, then if you move them and they start kicking and screaming, as they often do, what then?
That's when they progress from being passive resisters to being active resisters. You can't assume the person you're apprehending is going to turn into an active resister, just 'cause they usually do. Why then, would there be specific guidelines for passive resisters?
 
  • #153
In that case everyone is an active resistor because in the next two seconds anyone could suddenly start kicking and screaming?
 
  • #154
Evo said:
As opposed to actually beating him up?

The guy is a jackass. He begged for the encounter. He was wrong the whole time. Why is there even a discussion?
I agree. Why antagonize the police who are just trying to protect us? UCLA campus is not the safest place these days - someone was even stabbed in broad daylight in October.
 
  • #155
Gokul43201 said:
Because we're not arguing whether or not the guy is a jackass. Bring that up is immaterial. We're discussing whether or not the police appear to have used justifiable force.
From what I've seen, they did use justifiable force, actually, less than what would have been expected in a real world scenario. They were very restrained due to it being a college campus.
 
  • #156
Quis custodiet ipso custodes?

This is the third recent incident which has seen extensive coverage.

The other incidents involve video footage of a bloody-faced man getting hit in the face multiple times by a policeman who also has his knee on the man's neck, and a who is handcuffed and inside a police cruiser getting peppersprayed in the face. The chief of police recently announced that both of those were considered appropriate uses of force.

The cops have a tough job.
 
  • #157
Evo said:
:confused: :rofl: Wan't to explain that?

What I mean is his character, his opinion or 'looking for trouble' doesn't make the police's actions any more ethically correct or incorrect.

So an exaggerated example; just because some guy is a dickhead doesn't mean shooting him becomes more ethically correct.
 
  • #158
Evo said:
From what I've seen, they did use justifiable force, actually, less than what would have been expected in a real world scenario. They were very restrained due to it being a college campus.
By their own guidelines, (again, in Russ' link) stun guns are recommended for active, not passive, resisters. Their own statement claims the student was limp - making him passive.
 
  • #159
Gokul43201 said:
By their own guidelines, (again, in Russ' link) stun guns are recommended for active, not passive, resisters. Their own statement claims the student was limp - making him passive.
But his verbal abuse and actions made him much more aggressive and inciting riot.
 
  • #160
Evo said:
But his verbal abuse and actions made him much more aggressive and inciting riot.
Not by the guidelines. Verbal abuse doesn't make you an active resister.
 
  • #161
I think that they could have used the stun gun one less time and could have subdued him since there were three, but I actually don't think that they should be fired for this. It wasn't that bad at all. The student was the agressor and wouldn't comply so they took action...and it was reasonable.

A stun gun does hurt, but the pain doesn't last for too long if you are stunned for a second or two (which is what happened in this person's case). I would definitely choose a stun gun over being hit that's for sure. I would equate using the stun gun on the subject for a lot longer to torture, but for a couple of seconds it's nothing.
 
  • #162
NateTG said:
The other incidents involve video footage of a bloody-faced man getting hit in the face multiple times by a policeman who also has his knee on the man's neck,
I saw this one too. I am convinced he was using a "subduing" level of force on a resisting subject. He was not trying to injure the guy - it was more like some "convincing" thumps to the face. (Specifically, he only drew his fist back about twelve inches).

This stuff looks horrifying, no doubt about that. But cops are there to do this job so we don't have to experience it. I do not envy them their jobs.
 
Last edited:
  • #163
Gokul43201 said:
That's when they progress from being passive resisters to being active resisters. You can't assume the person you're apprehending is going to turn into an active resister, just 'cause they usually do. Why then, would there be specific guidelines for passive resisters?
He became an Active resistor when he started kicking and screaming when they tried to carry him downstairs.
 
  • #164
Moonbear said:
Each of the prior times he was tased, the "zap" was audible.
I don't hear them. Can you tell me the times that the zaps are heard?
 
  • #165
Gokul43201 said:
By their own guidelines, (again, in Russ' link) stun guns are recommended for active, not passive, resisters. Their own statement claims the student was limp - making him passive.
But, as I have shown, he became aggressive.
 
  • #166
Evo said:
He became an Active resistor when he started kicking and screaming when they tried to carry him downstairs.
But you say he was never tazed after this point...so that should be irrelevant.

I contend that the flailing of the legs was a response to the zapping. You say he was never zapped then (or subsequently)...and hence that there were no more than two tazings. This contradicts the police briefing which claims "multiple" tazings. It also doesn't explain the exact same cadence to his screaming.

Furthermore, if he was kicking, lashing about and actively resisting, you think the police will make a statement saying he was limp?
 
Last edited:
  • #167
Gokul43201 said:
But you say he was never tazed after this point...so that should be irrelevant.
No, he was aggresive already, as I have pointed out.

nd that the flailing of the legs was a response to the zapping. You say he was never zapped then (or subsequently)...and hence that there were no more than two tazings.
No shocks after the handcuffing.

I have the video.
 
  • #168
He had already been tased prior to kicking and screaming while being carried down the stairs. Since we cannot see how exactly he was resisting during the first tasing we cannot say for sure if he was passive or active at that point in time. Although the police report seems to indicate passive.
 
  • #169
Evo said:
No, he was aggresive already, as I have pointed out.

No shocks after the handcuffing.

I have the video.
Are we looking at the same video?

At what time do you see him being cuffed?

Do you insist he wan't cuffed at 1:47, during the second tazing?
 
  • #170
Gelsamel Epsilon said:
He had already been tased prior to kicking and screaming while being carried down the stairs. Since we cannot see how exactly he was resisting during the first tasing we cannot say for sure if he was passive or active at that point in time. Although the police report seems to indicate passive.
The video shows him at the top of the stairs. All is calm. No one else in the room is looking at them. He is picked up on the stairs and goes into a fit, kicking and screaming while they carry him down stairs. It's all on film.
 
Last edited:
  • #171
DaveC426913 said:
I saw this one too. I am convinced he was using a "subduing" level of force on a resisting subject. He was not trying to injure the guy - it was more like some "convincing" thumps to the face. (Specifically, he only drew his fist back about twelve inches).

The report apparently had 'distracting'. I'm not claiming that they acted inappropriately.

That said, I don't get this whole notiong of causing pain as equivalent to subduing someone. On the other hand I'm not sure that there's a better way.

BTW: There's plenty of UFC footage where people are pulling back less than 12 inches too , and they're not worried about injuring the other guy. <SHRUGS>
 
  • #172
Evo said:
The video shows him at the top of the stairs. All is calm. No one else in the room is looking at them. He is picked up on the stairs and goes into a fit, kicking and screaming while they carry him down stairs. It's all on film.
Which film? Certainly not the one linked in the OP! Are you looking at a different video?
 
  • #173
Yes, I'm beginning to think so too, Gokul.
 
  • #174
Gokul43201 said:
Which film? Certainly not the one linked in the OP! Are you looking at a different video?
Go to 3.08 minutes into the video, you'll see what I mean. Just watch from that point. NO TAZING.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #175
You say it shows him up the top of the starts with no one looking. 3.08 on is where he is tazed/has a fit and screams and where he is clearly in cuffs, and from then on he is dragged down the stairs where people crowd around them.

Also before 3.08, with the 2nd tazing it appears as though he is passively resisting not actively. And you're not sure about the 1st tazing but the police said he was limp, and in the end it's the police's interpretation that matters.

Also I like to add that Russ's link are guidelines. And I think (though I'm not sure, since I don't live in America) that it's ultimately down to the policeman's discretion. The question is was there a better way?
 

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top