UCLA campus police torture student, in the library

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rach3
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Student
Click For 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.
  • #241
Carrying him would not be "coercion through wounding" even in the (probably unlikely) situation that he becomes injured while they carry him. If they are carrying him, they are not coercing him to do anything. It might be that they could injure him by accident, but that still would not be coercion of any kind, while the taser thing is definitely coercion through pain.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #242
So, Orthodontist, I assume you would prefer being immediately handcuffed and bodily dragged out of the building -- down several flights of stairs, no less -- rather than being zapped by an essentially harmless stun gun a couple of times, and then walking out on your own?

- Warren
 
  • #243
Semantics... I just woke up. You know what I mean. Coercion through pain, or removal and possible wounding?
 
  • #244
I think it is adbo. Seriously cmon, put yourself in his shoes. Obviously the cops did not arrive right away, and I am pretty sure that security would only call the police if the guy is being a jackass and refusing to leave. It is definitely understandable that they wanted him out. I mean, people have been raped and seriously injured at University Campus's because people without ID were not noticed/ordered off of the property. The dumby didn't have his ID card and failed to see why he should have it on him. I can understand that he forgot to have it on him, that's fine, I don't remember my wallet everytime I go out, but its just plain ridiculousness to make a big deal about it and refuse to leave.

Unfortunately I don't see the police sitting down with him and begging him to leave as a viable option. And I think that he was willing to struggle if the police tried to take him out. Perhaps they could have got cuffs on his legs as well as hands, but I wasn't there so I don't know if that was a viable possibility or not.

I don't completely disagree with the notion that there were other options available to the officers, but I do disagree with the notion that he was "tortured" or even treated excessively badly. I have seen people get stunned on TV before (At full power, due to having a gun etc) and they didn't scream as loud as this fool. Since the only thing we are able to judge his pain by is the intensity of his yelling, I bet that it is not as bad as it seems. Anyone here ever get stunned?
 
Last edited:
  • #245
chroot said:
So, Orthodontist, I assume you would prefer being immediately handcuffed and bodily dragged out of the building -- down several flights of stairs, no less -- rather than being zapped by an essentially harmless stun gun a couple of times, and then walking out on your own?
Well, what I would prefer--and what I would do--is walk out voluntarily before the police even got there, as soon as I was asked to leave because I didn't have my card. If I were a little bit dumber then I might wait until the police arrived, then realize the situation was getting a bit serious and walk out with them with no additional convincing needed. If I were even dumber than that then yes, I would prefer to be handcuffed and carried out than zapped with a taser.

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.
 
  • #246
I admit they had quite a few officers there, but have you ever tried to carry someone who didn't want to be carried? Even a little kid, it's hard! And no, I am not a kidnapper, :smile: . I am referring to a kid throwing a temper tantrum (not at all unlike this scenario)
 
Last edited:
  • #247
According to this report if the subject is able to move away from the drive stun then the drive stun is considered ineffective.

http://www.taser.com/documents/Columbus_TASER_Study_June_2005a.pdf

But it also says that in Drive Stun mode it's working off "pain compliance" rather then it's stunning ability. Which suggest to me a fair amount of pain.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #248
So, Orthodonist.. now you've admitted that the zap is, in your estimation, only "a little pain." You've also admitted that your objection to the zap is really more of principal and pride than actual physical pain or injury. Very interesting, 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.

- Warren
 
  • #250
The skin might be burned in two tiny little spots where the electrode touches the skin. You'd suffer far worse injury by eating pizza that's a little too hot.

- Warren
 
  • #251
0rthodontist said:
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.
 
  • #252
It also says that Amnesty international has problems with Drive Stun mode because it's often used on restrained people.
 
  • #253
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.
 
  • #254
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.
 
  • #255
0rthodontist said:
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.
 
  • #256
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #257
Gelsamel Epsilon said:
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.
 
  • #258
chroot said:
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?
 
  • #259
I really don't see how any rational person can equate the police's actions here with torture.

- Warren
 
  • #260
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 :rolleyes:.
 
  • #261
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.
 
  • #262
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #263
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.
 
  • #264
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)
 
  • #265
chroot said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #266
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.
 
  • #267
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.
 
  • #268
They used a taser in "drive stun" mode. I earlier posted a link to an article quoting a police press release that explained it.
 
  • #269
Yep, so that's 50,000 volts of fun for him.
 
  • #270
Hurkyl said:
(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.