What you’re saying is, a lot of people just happened to die after being forced to undergo an extremely physically traumatic event.
Quite a coinkydink you’ve got there.
Dunno if the In These Times article about Tasers has been brought up yet, but it seems that people in the prime of life, in good health, with no drugs in their system at time of death, have had this odd coincidence happen to them.
Yeah, and it’s the same deal there: if someone’s doped up but the dope isn’t particularly likely to kill them, and then that person experiences some other intense physical trauma, what exactly killed them?
Or if I go into a hospital and punch a guy in critical condition, and he coincidentally happens to die in the next fifteen minutes, am I going to be in serious legal trouble? You betcha.
I think you’re basically exculpating the Taser if there’s any other complication going on, no matter how nonlethal that complication might be absent the shock of the Taser. I find that to be disingenous and intellectually dishonest.
Possibly. If the “suspect clearly did not require hands-on treatment”
It makes him an asshole, possibly. But not wrong in the sense that he’s violating civil rights. I wouldn’t say he’s being abusive either, but if someone claimed that behavior was abusing his power, I wouldn’t aruge the against it.
Mainly it comes down to the fact that its the officer’s call and its not fair to someone else to say what he should have done. (Provided the cops actions were legal of course). He’s the one on the scene, he makes the call.
Now, if an officer really thought that someone had no chance of being anything other than cooperative and the person was skrawny and weak looking and had no pockets and was wearing flip flops… and the officer just wanted to get a little rough and jerk him around on the way out. Then yeah, that cop is a complete asshole.
Benefit of the doubt–and maybe I’m biased–but benefit of the doubt will go to the officer on the scene. Again, provided his conduct was not illegal. If he just walked up and punched that kid in the face for not leaving… there would be no debate. If it’s not so clear, I will not say the decision was “wrong”. Not unless I knew his train of thought was “look at this pussy, I’m gonna jerk his arm hard when I grab it… just to fuck with him” then he’s wrong. But how can we know?
And really that’s the point I was trying to get to earlier. That is the only part of the scenario where I could see it going any better. Once it gets to the part where he’s sitting on the floor in the library, all the Taser jolts are warranted and justified. There isn’t anything in that part of the video where I would say “Well, at this point I would talk to him more” or anything like that. The only part that could go any different (better) would be the very initial contact with the suspect. And that relies on the premise that the suspect was on his way out the door, and wasn’t continuing to be loud and abnoxious, reluctant, or threatning.
But regardless of what made the suspect sit on the floor, everything the officers did once he was on the floor and not leaving was justified.
It can. But leaving your door open can provoke a person to steal something who otherwise would have kept going. It’s still the theif’s decision and he is responsible for his actions, regardless of how much you encouraged it or enticed his deep-rooted thieving psyche.
You said ‘wristlock’ remember? I was just saying it hurt worse than a wristlock because you said it hurt less. Or I think you said that I would say it hurt less. Or something… Anyway it’s not relevant. No sense in trying to figure out where this one was going…
Yea. I dont think it even hurts at all. Just scary. We’ll both agree this was an aside though, and not relevant. We’re getting off track.
Just to make it relevant to this particular incident, I’d like to point out that this Taser was used in a safer Drive Stuff manner with the dart cartridge removed. This delivers shorter pulses over a much, much, much shorter arc length. When the prongs are shot out, they can be like a foot or even two feet apart. They can land on each leg, making the current travel even further through the body.
The darts, though there is a aiming laser, can sometimes land god-knows where on a suspect. Maybe an eye? Maybe one on the eye and one right over the heart.
Anyway, I dont know if the Taser caused any or all of those deaths of all those healthy people. But I doubt very highly any of them were caused by a Drive Stun.
I’ll freely admit I haven’t read every account of this situation, but it seems that the student did not have the required ID to use the lab. DtG suggests that he did indeed have it but was upset about being asked to show it. I’m not sure if we know definitively what the story was.
The fact that he was using a computer doesn’t prove that he is a student. At my institution, we log in to computers using our ID numbers and a password. Lots of people forget to log out when they finish. I also know people who log in other people. The one best, agreed upon system of establishing one’s identity on a college campus is by showing your school ID. It’s one of the responsibilities you take on as a member of a campus community, particularly at a place like UCLA in the middle of a city.
I intervened on the behalf of a student at my undergrad alma mater. He was a man of color who was asked, harassed even, for his ID when he apparently had done nothing wrong. The student protested to the officers, then made complaints to administrators and alerted a number of alumni about the situation. I received a letter from the president outlining his understanding of the situation, what steps the police had taken, and how the situation was being addressed. A mature, sensible, and logical reaction to the situation.
The UCLA student violated a campus policy by not presenting his ID when asked, and if he in fact was using the facilities without his ID, violating another policy. It seems like if the student had used a little common sense, he might have been able to get the lab monitor to let him use the lab temporarily, or left to get his ID, and then presented it and gotten back to work. Instead he chose to escalate the situation and get arrested, which might make a convenient excuse for not turning in an assignment on time. I agree it looks horrible on tape. But as a former college student administrator, I’ve had to ask the police to handle situations with students that got out of hand. I always gave students the opportunity to make a good decision and de-escalate, but occasionally some chose poorly. This student sounds like one of the latter.
The lawsuit makes me suspect that the student has another agenda aside from working toward his degree.
Actually, these technicalities are dealt with by the coroner. I recently learned alot about this when my husband had to deal with a use of froce that resulted in the death of a 22 year old subject. When the autopsy was completed, the corner determined that the cause of death was a heart attack, caused by a 75% blockage. But, the coroner gave something called an “if, but, for” statement.
It went something like this. “The subject died of a heart attack (he used technical terms) that was the result of a 75% blockage of the (insert technical language). The death was concurrent with a use of force. IF the use of force would not have occurred, the subject would likely not have died at this time. But, if not for the previous heart condition, the use of force would not have killed the subject”
Thus, the coroner ruled it Natural Causes, not homicide.
In other words, the cause of death was natural, but the use of force likely contributed to the death. However, the use of force itself was not enough to cause death unless the pre-existing condition was there.
In cases like this, those who used force are held blameless for the death, UNLESS the use of force itself was unjustified. But, even if it was unjustified, they are still not criminally liable.
This is also true in many of the tazering cases. I know it can be hard to understand, but that is the legal way it is done. This is what happens many times in those tazer cases mentioned and the complicated nature of it is what makes so many people not understand why the tazer did not CAUSE the death and that it is not a homicide.
Now, the issues of excessive force, unnecessary force or improper force application still must be resolved. I would imagine these could lead to charges of “dereliction of duty”, but they will not result in any criminal charges for assault or murder.
Maybe. Personally I’ll go with Bear_Nenno and say they should have just walked with him out of the library and arrested him outside for trespassing. Avoid touching him until he gets out of the building so he doesn’t freak out inside.
This is all assuming he was actually leaving as he was supposed to, I’ve yet to see conclusive evidence of that; we still need a lot more time for an investigation of this to pan out, I think.
The actual police officers have nothing to do with the ID checks, though. The CSOs that were checking IDs aren’t part of the UCLA campus police, but are volunteer student safety workers.
I’m a member of a country club, I pay for said membership. If I do something that gives management cause to throw me out (say I get drunk and unruly at the bar), just because I have my club ID card with me and because I’ve paid the membership fee does not mean I have the right to be there after I have been asked to leave by management.
If I continue to stay after being told to leave by management, I’m trespassing and they can rightfully call the police to throw me out.
No, what I’m saying is that you were wrong to say that this particular ACLU article says that 148 people were killed by Tasers. It does not say that. In some of those cases the Taser may be determined to be the causative factor in the death, but I’m confident that won’t be true for most of them.
And, as Bear_Nenno said, I’m absolutely sure none of those cases involved a drive stun as in the incident we’re discussing.
During the time period in which those 148 people died, the Taser was probably used thousands (or tens of thousands) of times. Considering only a few (if that) of those deaths are actually caused by the Taser, it really seems pretty safe overall.
I certainly see that the Taser can be dangerous, and I agree with the ACLU’s call to develop better policies on their use. I plan to approach my administration with the suggestion that our policy add restrictions on the number of applications on a single person.
But I still stand by my opinion that in the vast majority of cases, using the Taser is far more effective and safer for everyone (including the suspect) than other physical methods of control. It might, maybe, kill someone in a rare circumstance and that is a terrible thing and should be avoided if possible. However, using the Taser will prevent thousands of injuries to suspects and officers.
I suspect that someone has already responded to this post, but i’m taking a run at it anyway. This “tasering to keep assholes on their toes” – is this an official duty, or is this just an asinine assertion from someone unsatisfied with the way the legal system is actually set up? What other methods are available? Is a non-lethal sleeper hold an acceptable substitute? A smack on the kneecap with a billy club? I disagree that this student needed to be tasered at all, him posing no threat to the officers, who could have escorted him out by the arms/shoulders. I wonder if the student’s appearance (he has a Muslim-sounding name, yes?) provoked some unjustified fear reaction in the cops. I also expect police to be able to tolerate screaming, insults, threats, and do their jobs. The people they interact with are frequently distraught, either because of police presence or for other reasons.
I suspect you are correct about the way police do their jobs and how they react to problems, but this isn’t the way it is supposed to work.
Is there some fundamental misunderstanding about civil disobedience* here? Where does it say those who protest a perceived injustice by failing to comply are exempt from the consequences of their actions? It rather diminishes the impact of c.d. when engaging in it confers some form of instant immunity, doesn’t it?
*The student’s “There’s your Patriot Act!” comment was sufficiently inane that I hesitate to insult individuals like Thoreau, Ghandi, and MLK by lumping him in with them, but for the sake of this discussion, I suppose I must.
Not sure where you are going with this. How does this justify a violent over-reaction to these circumstances? Does civil disobedience excuse the fire hoses and police dogs that were unleashed against civil rights marchers in the 60’s?
Some consequences are justified; the consequences at UCLA were not.
The straw men are still blazing, I see. Short of to control a riot, force that can cause injury isn’t lawful. Tasers hurt like a muther, but they’re generally quite non-injurious. I think teargassing a crowd, which was lawfully ordered to disperse, yet refused, would be a much more appropriate comparison.
Back atcha, Loopy. No one in this thread has said the victim should suffer no consequences for civil disobedience, or that the police should do nothing. The debate here is whether the force was proportional to the act.
I don’t give a fuck about their opinions and find the American worship of unifrms laughable. Any response using that amount of force against a student in their own library is ridiculous.
The correct response of the police should have been to shrug and walk away.
In my university a little old lady or an old guy working part time as a porter would have politely asked his name and confirmed his status on the library computer and that would have been the end of it. We don’t have the ‘respect my authority’ attitude that rules is rules and have to be enforced no matter how stupid or how much trouble it’ll cause. We in fact like members of the public to feel free to use our resources.
And if he was creating a disturbance he would have been asked politely to leave. Failing that a security man would have escorted him off the premises and internal disciplinary action taken with his department. Apparently our ones have limbs that don’t break and backs that don’t throw when lifting people. And we try and not hire hemophiliacs who’ll bleed to death if they take a scratch.
I’m not crying a friggin’ river for these ‘won’t somebody think of the uniformed thugs’ arguments. And these ones acted like thugs.
Because being in a library is such a heinous friggin’ crime right? The correct response to a whole host of pointless regulations is to ignore them unless some specific problem arises, not behave like sadistic assholes.