[QUOTE=D_Odds]
While the library may have public access during the day, after hours access is restricted. It is a closed facility.
[/QUOTE]
Is the rule posted on the premises? If so then I agree, he should have politely said, “I forgot my ID. I’ll go back and get it.”
[QUOTE=Spectre of Pithecanthropus]
Is the rule posted on the premises? If so then I agree, he should have politely said, “I forgot my ID. I’ll go back and get it.”
[/QUOTE]
Got me, I’m on the wrong side of the country. I got the location and time from news articles, then found corroborating evidence for needing an ID after hours on the website.
[QUOTE=Spectre of Pithecanthropus]
But in this case it’s not a question of a closed facility. As is usual with public universities, the public is allowed access, but with privileges that are curtailed in conmparison with those who are enrolled there. Different classes of non-students have different kinds of privileges depending on whether they’re students at other institutions, visiting scholars, alumni library card holders, or whatever. I have a card in my wallet that grants me privileges at the UCLA libraries for the duration of my life. The university library, itself, granted me that card pursuant to my being a life member in the alumni association. If a COS or UCLA officer accosted me and told me I had to leave because I’m not a student I’d be dead pissed. Without intending to I might act or speak in a way that the officer thought to be threatening.
[/quote]
Well, if you make yourself look like a threat to a police officer, that’s just dumb. And police officers have certain things they are permitted to do when you offer plausible threat to them.
My response to tagos was not intended to apply to this specific situation, but was just a general concept. One about ideas such as property ownership and right to be on the premises of certain facilities. I’ve never been to the UCLA campus, so I’m certain you are far more familiar with the policies there than I am. In many academic institutions, you cannot access the computer systems unless you have valid ID as a faculty or student. The reasons for this, I think, are multiple. For one, they seek to maintain a regime where the administrators know who was logged in to which computer at which time (this is done with varying degrees of success depending on how strictly the computer access is governed.) That’s not a terrible idea, because if someone does something against university policy on a computer, it’s nice to be able to identify who was actually using said computer. And I think secondly, it is recognized that students are paying a computer lab fee or fees that contribute to the upkeep of the computer lab, so they have a right to be there as paying customers (yes, I think students are indeed customers.)
There’s a similar reasoning behind health clubs charing membership fees, except health clubs tend to be strictly for-profit businesses. There’s also many good reasons a university may have to provide public access to its services and equipment, too, especially if the university is a publicly funded one. However, my basic point was institutions which charge fees and require ID for use of services/equipment should have the right to remove people that aren’t supposed to be there, either because they aren’t fees paying members or because they don’t have the appropriate ID to prove they are fees paying members. And my intention was to dismiss the notion that the proper response, universally, to someone using a computer when he can’t show ID proving he has the right to use it is to simply ignore it and let the person continue about their business.
That line of reasoning would pretty much make every computer lab in the country public.
They probably don’t post signs directing students to the cafeteria either. There are things you know are SOP just because you’re a student.
[QUOTE=Euthanasiast]
Bear_Nenno, Thank you so much for withstanding the storm of blubbering vaginas on this board, and trying calmly, yet fruitlessly, to use common sense and a basic understanding of the real world to make your points. You must have known what you were in for from post one, yet you weathered it. Kudos, fucking seriously.
I love this board, I really do. However, with members whose collective intelligence far exceeds nearly every board in existence, it’s a tragedy to find so few of you actually have any common sense.
[/QUOTE]
Agreed 100%.
Kudos to you, Bear_Nenno. You’re a more patient man than most, to put up with all this and not lose your cool.
It’s indeed odd how so many posters on the SDMB seem to live in a happy bubble of existence that’s completely lacking in common sense.
[QUOTE=Spectre of Pithecanthropus]
Is the rule posted on the premises? If so then I agree, he should have politely said, “I forgot my ID. I’ll go back and get it.”
[/QUOTE]
I was in the CLICC lab yesterday, and the rule that only students are allowed during Night Powell were posted on the glass doors. The notice was however dated November 15, 2006 :dubious: . The hours for Night Powell were not listed on the notice, but referred the reader to the hours posted out front.
Funniest response I’ve heard so far: someone said that what Richards needs to do now is book a night at a comedy club, and then bounce out on stage Kramer style, raise his hands in a “ta da!” gesture, and go, “The Aristocrats!”
That. Would be awesome.
At work, we were saying that instead of being contrite and talking about his “rage” and his “psychiatrist,” he should go on the defensive and say, “I have Tourette’s! It’s a tragic disease, you fucking fuck!”
Anyone know what happened to the kid who was taken away?
[QUOTE=Cartooniverse]
Anyone know what happened to the kid who was taken away?
[/QUOTE]
He’s still an asshole.
Um. I wasn’t arguing for or against his assholeness. I was asking if anyone knew what the follow-up story was.
Nothing more.
I don’t know—but I’d like to imagine that wherever he is, he’s still shouting asinine slogans, refusing to stand up, and being tasered. Probably racked up a few thousand by now.
I just don’t understand the logic that says a person deserves to be tasered because he was an “asshole”. There seem to be a lot of people who believe it’s perfectly acceptable for the police to make a judgment as to a person’s character and then punish him, on the spot, for not being nice. And that appears to be the kind of society some people want to live in. Scaaaaaary.
[QUOTE=Cartooniverse]
Um. I wasn’t arguing for or against his assholeness. I was asking if anyone knew what the follow-up story was.
Nothing more.
[/QUOTE]
No need for the um. I though it was obvious I was just being a smartass. Guess I should have done this: 
[QUOTE=lowbrass]
I just don’t understand the logic that says a person deserves to be tasered because he was an “asshole”. There seem to be a lot of people who believe it’s perfectly acceptable for the police to make a judgment as to a person’s character and then punish him, on the spot, for not being nice. And that appears to be the kind of society some people want to live in. Scaaaaaary.
[/QUOTE]
This thread is 9 pages long. If that is all you got out of it then go back to the beginning and try again. He wasn’t tasered for being an asshole. That was just an added bonus. It is still legal to be an asshole. Look around the Pit and you will find plenty of examples.
Ok. After 8-plus pages, I’d feel my time here wasted if I didn’t say something.
[QUOTE=tagos]
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.
[/QUOTE]
First, I’m glad (based on a number of your posts in this thread) that you have no problem being an anti-American bigot. I’m amazed to hear that everyone in England lives in peace and harmony, and no one in authority ever hurts those who aren’t in positions of power. If only we were so lucky. :rolleyes:
Second, no one was electrocuted, and certainly no one was harmed because they were in a library. Of all the actions leading to the guy being tasered, ‘being in the library’ was as much a cause as ‘having gotten out of bed in the morning.’ He was tasered for non-compliance with an officer, I mean. Really.
Moving on, even though often I feel like Bear_Nenno is a bit extreme, in this thread he is for the most part reasoned, reasonable, and informative. It seems like the big issue (forgetting all the strawmen and side arguments) is whether nor not a taser is an appropriate compliance tool ( call it a “method of forcing a person to do something via use of pain” if you wish). I’d say it’s a 100% given that law enforcement need to have a number of methods at their disposal to force compliance. Whether or not the crime (or suspected crime) is murdering a busload of nuns or tresspassing.
No one seems particularly interested, though, except for the law enforcement officers in this thread, in actually discussing the consequences, for officers and victims, of the use of a taser as opposed to other methods of compliance. All anyone says is “they kill!!” “They’re electrocuting people!” “It’s torture!” None of this views the taser in comparison to other methods the officers have at their disposal. Without that kind of analysis, screaming bloody murder is nothing more than a reactionary response to something the detractor really knows next to nothing about.
To all the folks who find a serious police response to a potential tresspasser in a university building unnecessary, I think you’re just really off base. Most universities I know require keycards or keys to enter many buildings. This is for the safety of the students attending. It’s very important for a university to maintain safety and security, and if an unidentified person in a university building will not show ID, then of course you want them out. Imagine the headlines when the guy who spent the afternoon in the library, was asked for ID, didn’t show it, and was allowed to stay, ends up following a girl home to her dorm and assults her. Heads would roll at the university and some pretty serious lawsuits would probably follow.
As an alum, parent, community member, or fellow young person, it is in everybody’s best interest for universities to maintain a fairly rigid standard of security.
[QUOTE=Loach]
This thread is 9 pages long. If that is all you got out of it then go back to the beginning and try again. He wasn’t tasered for being an asshole. That was just an added bonus. It is still legal to be an asshole. Look around the Pit and you will find plenty of examples.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, I read the thread thank you very much. Your glee at hearing of another person being hurt sickens me.
[QUOTE=Eonwe]
No one seems particularly interested, though, except for the law enforcement officers in this thread, in actually discussing the consequences, for officers and victims, of the use of a taser as opposed to other methods of compliance. All anyone says is “they kill!!” “They’re electrocuting people!” “It’s torture!” None of this views the taser in comparison to other methods the officers have at their disposal. Without that kind of analysis, screaming bloody murder is nothing more than a reactionary response to something the detractor really knows next to nothing about.
[/QUOTE]
Hmmm…I think it was analyzed to death. You could cherry-pick some of the more extreme reactionary posts and make it look like nobody analyzed the situation, but if you look at the more cogent responses I don’t think that’s the case. I can imagine cases where the police might need to use a tazer, but I honestly don’t think this was such a case. “Stand up or we’ll tazer you!” sounds more like a perverse game of Simon Says than a necessary response to an immediate threat. There are any number of things the security officers could have done that would have been more appropriate given the circumstances. If anyone is suggesting they should have done nothing then I think they’re wrong. What most are saying here is that they could have handled the situation much better than they did. There have been dozens of posts here detailing precisely what the officers should have done that would have been more effective.
[QUOTE=lowbrass]
Hmmm…I think it was analyzed to death. You could cherry-pick some of the more extreme reactionary posts and make it look like nobody analyzed the situation, but if you look at the more cogent responses I don’t think that’s the case.
[/QUOTE]
Well, to my eyes, it hasn’t. After reading this entire thread, I can tell you:
There are some deaths on record as having happened after being tased (I think it was Lissa who gave a good example of what some corronors’ reports might have looked like).
There are different policies in different departments that all have their own policies regarding tasers, but most of them seem to rank the taser somewhere along the spectrum of non-deadly force.
Different departments have policies in place stating when it is appropriate for officers to use non-deadly force in order to make suspects comply with police demands.
So, that’s really all we have as far as ‘facts’ go. What I want to know is, if tasering is such an awful, torturous form of coersion, what makes it stand out against other physical means of forcing compliance? Is it more deadly? Show me! Is it more likely to cause bodily harm? Show me! Let’s talk about these things, instead of shouting “oh noes, electro-torture!!”
I have no horse in this race, but on the surface it seems that a one-off shock to temporarially incapacitate someone is a much better option for all involved than getting physical many other ways. I’m not sure why others don’t see that, beyond the fact that it involves electricity.
I am also not trying to argue that inappropriate use of compliance tools, whatever they may be, is acceptable. In the case of the OP, I’m leaning towards the side of the officers, but I don’t really feel like I know enough to have a solid opinion on the details of exactly what happened. However, many of the arguments in this thread have been about a taser’s 100% inappropriateness as a compliance tool somewhere on par with other familiar methods of forcing non-violent (at the moment) suspects to follow orders, and I’ve seen minimal thoughtful discussion about what the objections are. This is the pit, so maybe I’m expecting too much.
[QUOTE=Eonwe]
Well, to my eyes, it hasn’t. After reading this entire thread, I can tell you:
There are some deaths on record as having happened after being tased (I think it was Lissa who gave a good example of what some corronors’ reports might have looked like).
There are different policies in different departments that all have their own policies regarding tasers, but most of them seem to rank the taser somewhere along the spectrum of non-deadly force.
Different departments have policies in place stating when it is appropriate for officers to use non-deadly force in order to make suspects comply with police demands.
So, that’s really all we have as far as ‘facts’ go. What I want to know is, if tasering is such an awful, torturous form of coersion, what makes it stand out against other physical means of forcing compliance? Is it more deadly? Show me! Is it more likely to cause bodily harm? Show me! Let’s talk about these things, instead of shouting “oh noes, electro-torture!!”
[/quote]
Again, I think you are selectively reading the more extreme posts in this thread and ignoring the more cogent points that were made.
I think you are the one who is not seeing what happened. The tazer was not used as a “one off shock” to incapacitate a combative person, it was used as a punishment admininstered to a non-combative person for not obeying commands, MULTIPLE times. Please - watch the video, and read the news accounts of the incident. This point was made many, many times in this thread. I don’t know why you haven’t seen it.
Then you need to do more reading about it.
[QUOTE=Loach]
No need for the um. I though it was obvious I was just being a smartass. Guess I should have done this:
[/QUOTE]
Oh. My bad ! I can sometimes detect irony without being slugged in the puss with it by dint of emoticon overload. Didn’t mean to sound snarky at all in my reply. 