UCLA campus police torture student, in the library

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rach3
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Student
AI Thread Summary
A disturbing incident at UCLA involved campus police repeatedly tasering an unarmed Muslim student who had forgotten his ID and became confrontational when denied entry to the library. Witnesses reported that the student was on the ground, screaming in pain, while a crowd of bystanders urged the officers to stop the excessive use of force. The UCLA administration defended the police's actions as necessary for campus safety, but many criticized the response as excessive and inappropriate. Some discussions highlighted the student's initial resistance and the police's obligation to enforce rules, while others condemned the repeated tasering as unnecessary. The incident raises significant concerns about police conduct and the treatment of students on campus.
  • #301
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!".
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #302
Gelsamel Epsilon said:
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.
 
  • #303
Hurkyl said:
For the first cycle. Read the last sentence of my quote. :-p
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #304
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #305
0rthodontist said:
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. :rolleyes:

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?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #306
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #307
Evo said:
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?
 
Last edited:
  • #308
0rthodontist said:
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.
 
  • #309
0rthodontist said:
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.
 
  • #310
Hurkyl said:
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.
 
  • #311
Evo said:
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.
 
  • #312
0rthodontist said:
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.
 
  • #313
0rthodontist said:
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.
 
  • #314
Math Is Hard said:
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.

:eek: Bar of soap for you!
 
  • #315
Evo said:
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.
 
  • #316
0rthodontist said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #317
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #318
russ_watters said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #319
cyrusabdollahi said:
:eek: Bar of soap for you!
agreed. Ten hours in the lab on a Saturday makes me a little grumpy. But still...
 
  • #320
0rthodontist said:
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
 
  • #321
chroot said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #322
0rthodontist said:
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
 
  • #323
0rthodontist said:
"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
 
  • #324
chroot said:
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.
 
  • #325
chroot said:
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!
Maybe I was not clear enough. The distinction is this:

If you are physically restrained and moved somewhere, you are not coerced into making any decisions you did not want to make. Your free will is in that respect preserved. It's true that the choices you can physically make are then restricted, but from those very limited choices you may do whatever you like.

If you are coerced into doing something, it's not just that physical circumstances rule out certain choices for you. It's actually that someone has forced your decision for you; through pain, they have forced you to act in the way they would like. That's a fundamental violation of your free will itself, not just of the physical circumstances that it is constrained to act within.
 
  • #326
0rthodontist said:
If you are physically restrained and moved somewhere, you are not coerced into making any decisions you did not want to make. Your free will is in that respect preserved. It's true that the choices you can physically make are then restricted, but from those very limited choices you may do whatever you like.

If you decided you were going to stay in the library, regardless of the rule you knew you were breaking, then that was the conclusion of your free decision making process. If you were then ejected from the library, by any means whatsoever, your free will was violated. You were forced by someone else to do something other than that which you wanted to do.

It's actually that someone has forced your decision for you; through pain, they have forced you to act in the way they would like.

Do you not realize I could make the exact same argument in the opposite way?

If you really wanted to stay in the library, you could overcome the stun gun's pain and stay, regardless of how badly it hurts. You still have the free will to respond (or not) to the pain. No one's actually making you leave the building, so your free will remains intact.

However, if you are physically tied up and dragged out of the building, then there's no way at all for you to do what you want to do. You were forced by someone else to leave the building, even though that wasn't your decision. Your free will has been stolen from you.

Besides, kiddo.. really... do you think people who break laws deserve have their free will so respected? I'm sure plenty of murderers would really prefer to not be in prison. Should their right to free will be taken into consideration?

You are really, really struggling here. Just give it up.

- Warren
 
  • #327
chroot said:
If you decided you were going to stay in the library, regardless of the rule you knew you were breaking, then that was the conclusion of your free decision making process. If you were then ejected from the library, by any means whatsoever, your free will was violated. You were forced by someone else to do something other than that which you wanted to do.



Do you not realize I could make the exact same argument in the opposite way?

If you really wanted to stay in the library, you could overcome the stun gun's pain and stay, regardless of how badly it hurts. You still have the free will to respond (or not) to the pain. No one's actually making you leave the building, so your free will remains intact.

However, if you are physically tied up and dragged out of the building, then there's no way at all for you to do what you want to do. You were forced by someone else to leave the building, even though that wasn't your decision. Your free will has been stolen from you.

Besides, kiddo.. really... do you think people who break laws deserve have their free will so respected? I'm sure plenty of murderers would really prefer to not be in prison. Should their right to free will be taken into consideration?

You are really, really struggling here. Just give it up.

- Warren

Comparing this incident to murderers?! What the hell? That's really low.

That's like comparing Bush to Hitler.

Lame.
 
  • #328
JasonRox said:
Comparing this incident to murderers?! What the hell? That's really low.

I didn't compare this incident to murder. I expanded Orthodontist's thoughts on the free will of criminals to include all criminals.

Do you have anything of substance to add to this discussion? Do you intend to actually read and comprehend the arguments being made?

- Warren
 
  • #329
Yes, you could make the argument the opposite way, if you felt that physical options are more important than the sanctity of will.

Imprisoned murderers have not been coerced into doing anything they don't choose to. They have been physically restricted, but they have not been coerced. Their will, vile as it is, is still their own. Imprisonment does not have any impact on the fact of one's free will. It reduces the choices available, but not the will itself. A man in a cell has just as much free will as a man in a meadow--he just has fewer things to do with that will.

Just give it up.
You know, I would like to give up on this discussion. When I watch that video, I see a couple of police attacking a man who was not fighting back and who, partway through, said he would leave. I see an overwhelming force that could have easily and safely carried or dragged the student out of the library, but instead chose to torture him with a weapon whose sole purpose is to inflict pain, for the crime of forgetting his card. It just blows my mind that anyone thinks those officers could have be doing the right thing. I don't like this discussion.
 
  • #330
0rthodontist said:
Imprisoned murderers have not been coerced into doing anything they don't choose to.

Imprisoned murderers have been forced by other people (one way or another) to live in a prison cell. They certainly didn't choose to live there. This nicely explains all the escape attempts mounted every year.

A man in a cell has just as much free will as a man in a meadow--he just has fewer things to do with that will.

I think you may be alone in that argument. It doesn't even make any sense.

I don't like this discussion.

Then stop prolonging it.

- Warren
 
  • #331
**tiptoes in and braves the wrath of Chroot**
This "discussion" seems to be just repeating the same points over and again at this point. This is what I call an impasse, and so I have locked the thread.
 

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top