UCLA campus police torture student, in the library

[twisting_edge]

Zap him once, or cuff him and carry him out (if necessary)? I would say that given that choice they should cuff him and carry him out. Zapping a person physically assaults them; it's an act of violence. Cuffing a person and dragging him out of the library may be humiliating but it's not actually physically violent. I would say that cuffing someone and carrying them out is a less extreme action than tasering them once.

It also usually creates an arrest record when they do that, something most students would probably rather not have.

 

[Gelsamel Epsilon]

It also says that Amnesty international has problems with Drive Stun mode because it's often used on restrained people.

 

[dontdisturbmycircles]

If he was restrained and stunned, that is cruel, I doubt that was the case here as the officers were in front of a crowd of outwardly spoken university students.

 

[Gelsamel Epsilon]

He was definitely restrained at least after the 2nd shock. Whether there were shocks after that is debatable because he could be acting the scream and flailing.

 

[twisting_edge]

The main reason I'd prefer being carried out is that if I were so stupid that I was dead-set against leaving, I sure wouldn't want my mind to be changed just because one of the officers inflicted pain on me. That would be an admission of weakness more embarrassing than just being bodily expelled from the library--it would say that my hypothetical "principles" (stupid ones in this case) are so weak that a little pain can change my mind. So not only would being zapped be more painful, it would also be more humiliating. I would rather be carried out.

That's more or less exactly what I felt his motivations probably were. I was a little less charitable about it the two or three times I described them.

 

[Gelsamel Epsilon]

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/local_news/epaper/2005/05/30/m1a_taser_0530.html

Even the company that makes the stun gun, Taser International, urges caution about use of the weapon in the "drive-stun" mode and with repeated shocks...

Edit:

Officers also can remove the prong cartridge and discharge the weapon directly against a person's body in the "drive-stun" mode to subdue combative arrestees with a searing jolt of pain.

The Taser training manual advises that because it is not incapacitating, this mode can lead to "prolonged struggles" and that "it is in these types of scenarios that officers are often facing accusations of excessive force."

The technique also requires some care, according to Taser International, but the company's guidelines contain conflicting recommendations. The manual points out that the neck and groin "have proven highly sensitive to injury, such as crushing to the trachea or testicles if applied forcefully." The manual continues, "However, these areas have proven highly effective targets."

A recent amendment to the DeLand Police Department's Taser policy is clearer, saying that the "drive-stun" mode can be used only under exceptional circumstances. Local policies don't address the use of the "drive-stun" mode in writing, although narratives in some of the reports examined by The Post acknowledge that this use is discouraged.

 

[twisting_edge]

He was definitely restrained at least after the 2nd shock. Whether there were shocks after that is debatable because he could be acting the scream and flailing.

He's not acting, he's just overreacting. His is probably completely freaked out. He obviously never thought things would get that far, else he would have left a lot earlier.

As a consequence, he is panicked and disoriented, and has no idea what to expect next. It's no surprise he would overreact under such circumstances.

 

[0rthodontist]

So, Orthod``teresting, indeed...

It leaves me to wonder whether you are really against the use of the stun gun because it may injure, or because it may injure the pride.

I am against the use of the stun gun because it is coercion by pain, which is wrong not because it causes injury, but because it is degrading to the human spirit and it is the principle behind torture. Why do we consider torture unethical in most circumstances, even when it doesn't cause permanent injury? Whatever the reasons that torture is unethical, these are the same reasons that other instances of coercion by pain are unethical.

Coercion by pain can sometimes be an ethical choice, but only if it averts a greater disaster.

Here is another way to look at the situation in the library: the police officers are going to remove that kid from the library against his will no matter what happens. They can coerce him through pain from the taser, or they can carry him out. Either way it is not his choice. If he walks out on his own because of the pain the police inflict, he is no more under his own control than if he is carried out in handcuffs.

TE, are you sure that handcuffing someone automatically counts as an arrest?

 

[chroot]

I really don't see how any rational person can equate the police's actions here with torture.

- Warren

 

[dontdisturbmycircles]

The only way I could see it as being classified as torture is if he was unable to get up. I would agree that it is plausible that he would have had a hard time getting up after being stunned, but as was said by someone else, if he's spouting political statements at the top of his lungs, I have a hunch he could have walked .

 

[Gelsamel Epsilon]

http://www.november.org/stayinfo/breaking06/JustifyTasers.html

A probe fired from a taser delivers 50,000 volts, usually overwhelming a person's nervous system and sending muscles into uncontrollable contractions.

But if it's used in drive stun mode, although it emits the same amount of electrical energy, it can't cause a neuromuscular response.

 

[dontdisturbmycircles]

So if it can't cause a neuromuscular response in this case, why do you keep posting info about how it can cause uncontrollable contractions, it simply doesn't apply here.

I think they just use the probes when they feel threatened, and the "drive stun" to encourage compliance.

 

[Gelsamel Epsilon]

Where did I say it could cause uncontrollable contractions?

I'm just posting some interesting facts about the difference between driver-stun mode and the normal tazer mode. Make of it what you will.

 

[dontdisturbmycircles]

You were talking about the fact that a taser fires probes capable of firing 50,000 volts and "sending muscles into uncontrollable contractions." I guess I misunderstood the intent of your post. Its just I feel that there should be a definite distinction between a taser and a close-contact stun device. (At a lower voltage)

 

[0rthodontist]

I really don't see how any rational person can equate the police's actions here with torture.

Not equal--just based on the same principle. The principle behind torture is that if you inflict enough pain on someone, they will eventually do what you want. I think you don't dispute that this was the same principle that the police officers were trying to put into practice here.

 

[Gelsamel Epsilon]

Tasers shoot off wires that shoot 50,000 Volts of electricity through the body, this causes uncontrollable contractions. How ever there is an option on Tasers where you remove the wire shooting cartridge and instead just press the taser up against them and fire. This still has the same voltage and ampage it just doesn't paralyse (probably due to the two pins being very close together or something, I'm not sure).That's basically what my post said. Tasers normally paralyse, but in drive stun mode it's just there for the pain.

 

[dontdisturbmycircles]

Okay, I agree, sorry, I misinterpreted. I think in this case they were using a stun baton or something. But from what I understand the pain would have been a lot milder then a tazer. I think that in the media, the distinction between tazer/stungun is sometimes confused.

You have to admit though, the police didn't really have many other options available to them. It was either carry him out or try to coerce him into carrying himself out. I don't know, but I'd like to know whether or not he was acting aggressively, kicking etc. It is my understanding that if a non-cooperative individual is becomming aggressive with law enforcement, appropriate force can be used. But anyways, I am going to bed, goodnight.

 

[0rthodontist]

They used a taser in "drive stun" mode. I earlier posted a link to an article quoting a police press release that explained it.

 

[Gelsamel Epsilon]

Yep, so that's 50,000 volts of fun for him.

 

[SpaceTiger]

(Assuming this is true) that still doesn't make them qualified -- it just means they are less unqualified than some other random person.

My point is that, of everyone that has made a judgement so far (myself included), they appear to be the most qualified (or least unqualified, however you wish to phrase it). As such, that's where I would lean. But as I already said, I don't think there's enough evidence to say for sure either way.

 

[DaveC426913]

Here is another way to look at the situation in the library: the police officers are going to remove that kid from the library against his will no matter what happens. They can coerce him through pain from the taser, or they can carry him out. Either way it is not his choice. If he walks out on his own because of the pain the police inflict, he is no more under his own control than if he is carried out in handcuffs.

Police brutality victim shocked repeatedly, thrown down stairs
If he had enough spirit left to fight while being carried down that flight of stairs, and he fell, that would make a lovely scene for the front page of the papers.

As I said before, I believe the officers have a mandate to ensure the safety of, not only themselves and innocent citizens, but guilty ones as well.

 

[physics girl phd]

I believe the officers have a mandate to ensure the safety of, not only themselves and innocent citizens, but guilty ones as well.

Now THAT is well said.

 

[0rthodontist]

Police brutality victim shocked repeatedly, thrown down stairs
If he had enough spirit left to fight while being carried down that flight of stairs, and he fell, that would make a lovely scene for the front page of the papers.

First, there was never any indication that the kid had any intention of physically resisting. All evidence points to that he was just going limp and refusing to move. Additionally, there do not appear to be very many stairs--it's more like half a flight.

As I said before, I believe the officers have a mandate to ensure the safety of, not only themselves and innocent citizens, but guilty ones as well.

Absolutely, they do have that obligation. But first, there's no reason to believe that several officers carrying or dragging a limp student down half a flight of stairs (which they appear to do anyway) has much potential for injury. Second, there is no reason to believe that use of the taser will in any way encourage the student to walk on his own. Gelsamel has posted links to a few articles indicating that pain caused by "drive stun" tends to anger the subject rather than make them more cooperative. Third, the use of a taser solely to inflict pain rather than to immobilize a subject is immoral in most circumstances. Coercion by pain is something fundamentally wrong. It is not just wrong because it causes pain to the subject--that is a very small part of what's wrong with it. It's wrong because the pain is being used to coerce. Everything in me says you just don't do that unless there's no other choice.

Also, it's tough to make out but it doesn't seem that the officers ever warn the kid the first time they shock him. It sounds more like they are just saying "stand up" and then suddenly a scream.

 

[0rthodontist]

It's like this: if I accidentally hit my finger with a hammer, it will hurt a whole lot, my finger will turn blue and the fingernail will fall off. But it's not so bad, just one of those things that happens sometimes. And unless I actually broke the bone, there's no lasting damage. But if someone else hits my finger with a hammer and says "if you don't do what I want, I'll hurt you again," that is a hundred times worse. It physically hurts the same, but the fact that it was deliberate and used as coercion makes it an awful thing.

 

[dontdisturbmycircles]

There has to be lawful reason for using actions such as those described, although hammers are not often used. :P What about putting you in a cell for 23 hours a day for 10 years? Sounds pretty harsh right? Almost like torture :P, but if you do something dumb enough, that is what will happen to you, and I think that is fair. If the police were simply tazering him to get him to run laps around the library for amusement, that would be one thing, but if he is breaking the law at the time, its a bit different right? I see where your coming from, but you have admit that this guy was breaking the law (However minor the offense was.) being on private property without proof that he belongs there.

Also I think that resisting arrest is a criminal offense as well.

 

[0rthodontist]

There are cases where coercion by pain is justified, the penal system being one of them, because it is necessary for society to function. But you don't put someone into prison before they are convicted of a crime. It is a huge deal to put someone in prison, not done casually. The judicial system is a huge, impersonal machinery with the goal of taking punishment out of the hands of individual people and putting it in the hands of the law. It is a very serious and lengthy deliberation, that is subject to a huge amount of official regulation called the law.

If a police officer deliberately causes pain to a suspected criminal (and not being convicted of anything, that's all this student was--suspected) based on his own personal judgment, made on the spur of the moment, with the intent of coercion, that is a vastly different thing. It is not the police's right to "convict" someone of "not standing up" and administer their own punishment at the spur of the moment as they see fit.

 

[0rthodontist]

Also, before anyone else brings it up--normal police actions in the apprehension of a suspected criminal are NOT coercion. Shooting a man because he is holding a gun is not coercion by pain, it is just physically stopping him from causing harm. Tasering (using the ranged capability of the taser) someone who is trying to escape is not coercion by pain, it is just physically stopping him from escaping. Almost no police actions constitute coercion by pain, as indeed they shouldn't.

 

[dontdisturbmycircles]

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. 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?

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

 

[dontdisturbmycircles]

Again I don't refute that there were other options avaliable to the officers, just that the one chosen wasn't hideous or uncalled for.

 

[dontdisturbmycircles]

Let me clarify my oppinion. I think that the use of a stunning device is warranted if the person is behaving aggressively. I do not think that it should be used as a first resort, in fact I think it should be used as a last resort. The videos are very poor and it is hard to tell wether or not he was stuggling/acting aggressively to the point where carrying him out of there may have harmed himself or officers. I don't even know the approx strength of the the guy. I think personally, and this is definitely debatable but in my oppinion never provable given the info we both have, that the officers probably did feel that apprehension by carrying him out was probably not going to work and could result in injury which they may or may not be liable for. They know that a stun given in the appropriate place ONLY causes pain and not injury, so it was the safer option for both the person being arrested AND the officers.

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.

 

[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?

 

[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. . 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.

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