• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Guy at UCLA computer lab gets tasered (now with youtube video!!)

Page 25 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Then why would the officers use it to fvck with this kid-since they know it will only prolong the encounter?

Either they're completely inept or they knew and decided they wanted to play with this kid-either way they screwed up. What the hell is your point?

Rogo
 
The relevant quotation:
Palm Beach Post, Taser's effects fueling concern
The Taser training manual advises that because it is not incapacitating [emphasis added], this ["drive stun"] mode can lead to "prolonged struggles" and that "it is in these types of scenarios that officers are often facing accusations of excessive force."
Click to expand...
Originally posted by: Rogodin2
Then why would the officers use it to fvck with this kid-since they know it will only prolong the encounter?
Click to expand...
The quotation in the article is possibly taken out of its context in the training manual. I do not have a copy of the manual for reference, unfortunately. A plausible context is this: since "drive stun" is not incapacitating and can lead to prolonged struggles, it is strongly recommended to deploy the Taser in projectile mode when encountering a violent suspect.

When the Taser is first deployed at 0:30, the first two steps in the force continuum - body movement/posture and verbal communication - have failed. A Taser in "drive stun" adds a tool available to the officers. Traditional pain compliance (joint locks), Taser in "drive stun," OC (pepper spray), and impact weapons is an approximate ordering of potential techniques available to the officers.

I posted previously that joint locks have a risk of broken bones or dislocations, with arm locks being particularly dangerous due to MT's "going limp." If he jerks due to the pain being applied, his entire weight could be suddenly applied against the lock. Deploying OC indoors with many bystanders is a poor choice. Impact weapons (e.g. baton) are typically rated as more force than a Taser and will likely cause bruises and potentially broken bones.
 
Originally posted by: Rogodin2
Then why would the officers use it to fvck with this kid-since they know it will only prolong the encounter?

Rogo
Click to expand...

Because it's not the police officers' job to make encounters expedious. If it were they'd just let everybody go.
 
Originally posted by: Gartseff
Kind should've shown his library card, but the removal of a student from a library doesn't warrant the use of a taser.
Click to expand...

QFT.

Many of you seem to think that him acting like an asshat and the police doing their jobs poorly are mutually exclusive. They aren't. Both escalated the situation, but it's the officers' duty to defuse situations like this without making it worse. They failed.

 
Hey guys, I talked to the dead horse, and he said you can stop beating him now.


But really, can we get a lock on this thread already?
 
Originally posted by: I Saw OJ
Hey guys, I talked to the dead horse, and he said you can stop beating him now.


But really, can we get a lock on this thread already?
Click to expand...

Finally, a voice of reason. This thread is like:
n=true;
while(n) {
echo $bullshyt;
}
 
these are CAMPUS POLICE. This is a joke. I know if this happened on my campus the rich kids daddies would sue. As with any police department there are the authoritarian jerks and the good guys - and on a campus police department - its usually more of the former.
 
Every little bitch in here that thinks the cops did a good job would be BAWLING THEIR EYES OUT TO ATOT if this ever happened to them.
 
That fvcking liberal got what was coming to him.

Respect authority. You do your mouthing off and resistance in court. Not on the scene.

Dragged out of there like common street scum.
Which he is.
Whats he complaining about the Patriot Act for? Is he a terrorist?????
That dirtball should be tossed in prison.

When you resist authority you are rebelling against the US govt. And since this is a republic, when you resist authority you are resisting the will of the American people.
This "man" is nothing but an enemy of the state, at least in the making.
 
Originally posted by: meltdown75
Every little bitch in here that thinks the cops did a good job would be BAWLING THEIR EYES OUT TO ATOT if this ever happened to them.
Click to expand...

See here's the thing... we're smart enough to cooperate with the police, then if we feel they did something wrong deal with it afterwards.

Originally posted by: tommigsr
if he only complied at first...he wouldn't have been tasered...das all i gotta say. whiny-ass kid
Click to expand...

He could have complied at ANY point to end it. He chose to escalate the situation, probably because he knew it would make for a good lawsuit. The line about having a medical condition was BS - if he was so concerned about his health, he would have stood up and let them escort him out of the building.
 
Originally posted by: Crusader
That fvcking liberal got what was coming to him.

Respect authority. You do your mouthing off and resistance in court. Not on the scene.

Dragged out of there like common street scum.
Which he is.
Whats he complaining about the Patriot Act for? Is he a terrorist?????
That dirtball should be tossed in prison.

When you resist authority you are rebelling against the US govt. And since this is a republic, when you resist authority you are resisting the will of the American people.
This "man" is nothing but an enemy of the state, at least in the making.
Click to expand...



lol. nice parody post. i hate that "if you disagree you must be a terrorist" thinking too.

oh, and this just came to light:



"LAist has a great rundown of the history of Terrence Duren, an 18-year veteran of the UCPD and the 'taser-happy' officer in last week's incident. Among his greatest hits, it seems that he's been fired from a 'real' police force, recommended by the University for dismissal after choking a frat boy with a night stick (UCPD just suspended him), and tried after *shooting a homeless man* (who survived)."

Duren hasn't had the smoothest career in law enforcement. He came to Westwood after being fired from the infamous Long Beach PD. A few years after being hired by UCLA he was accused of using his nightstick to choke a fratboy and the university asked the UCPD to fire Duren, but he was only given a three month suspension.
In late 2003 Duren shot a homeless man, Willie Davis Frazier, Jr., in a Kerckhoff Hall bathroom. Frazier, who attempted at first to shun lawyers and represent himself, was imbalanced enough to spend time in mental institution as the court tried to figure out if he was fit to stand trial.

During a 2004 preliminary hearing in which Duren testified against Frazier, the officer carried a Machiavelli book into court, "The Prince", which argues that the ends justifies the means. "Did you know that this was Tupac's favorite book?" he asked.

 
Originally posted by: tangent1138
Originally posted by: Crusader
That fvcking liberal got what was coming to him.

Respect authority. You do your mouthing off and resistance in court. Not on the scene.

Dragged out of there like common street scum.
Which he is.
Whats he complaining about the Patriot Act for? Is he a terrorist?????
That dirtball should be tossed in prison.

When you resist authority you are rebelling against the US govt. And since this is a republic, when you resist authority you are resisting the will of the American people.
This "man" is nothing but an enemy of the state, at least in the making.
Click to expand...



lol. nice parody post. i hate that "if you disagree you must be a terrorist" thinking too.

oh, and this just came to light:



"LAist has a great rundown of the history of Terrence Duren, an 18-year veteran of the UCPD and the 'taser-happy' officer in last week's incident. Among his greatest hits, it seems that he's been fired from a 'real' police force, recommended by the University for dismissal after choking a frat boy with a night stick (UCPD just suspended him), and tried after *shooting a homeless man* (who survived)."

Duren hasn't had the smoothest career in law enforcement. He came to Westwood after being fired from the infamous Long Beach PD. A few years after being hired by UCLA he was accused of using his nightstick to choke a fratboy and the university asked the UCPD to fire Duren, but he was only given a three month suspension.
In late 2003 Duren shot a homeless man, Willie Davis Frazier, Jr., in a Kerckhoff Hall bathroom. Frazier, who attempted at first to shun lawyers and represent himself, was imbalanced enough to spend time in mental institution as the court tried to figure out if he was fit to stand trial.

During a 2004 preliminary hearing in which Duren testified against Frazier, the officer carried a Machiavelli book into court, "The Prince", which argues that the ends justifies the means. "Did you know that this was Tupac's favorite book?" he asked.
Click to expand...
They'll let anyone be a cop these days.

 
Originally posted by: Flatscan
Originally posted by: VooDooAddict
I think these officers would have tazed Ghandi.
Click to expand...
Wikipedia, Civil disobedience
For example, Mahatma Gandhi outlined the following rules:
  1. A civil resister (or satyagrahi) will harbour no anger.
  2. He will suffer the anger of the opponent.
  3. In so doing he will put up with assaults from the opponent, never retaliate; but he will not submit, out of fear of punishment or the like, to any order given in anger.
  4. When any person in authority seeks to arrest a civil resister, he will voluntarily submit to the arrest, and he will not resist the attachment or removal of his own property, if any, when it is sought to be confiscated by authorities.
  5. If a civil resister has any property in his possession as a trustee, he will refuse to surrender it, even though in defending it he might lose his life. He will, however, never retaliate.
  6. Retaliation includes swearing and cursing.
  7. Therefore a civil resister will never insult his opponent, and therefore also not take part in many of the newly coined cries which are contrary to the spirit of ahimsa.
  8. A civil resister will not salute the Union Jack, nor will he insult it or officials, English or Indian.
  9. In the course of the struggle if anyone insults an official or commits an assault upon him, a civil resister will protect such official or officials from the insult or attack even at the risk of his life.
Click to expand...
Relevant points bolded. Rule 4 may also apply, depending on one's opinion. MT was clearly in violation of Gandhi's rules as quoted.
Click to expand...


Nice.

From my impression of the video, before reading time logged transcripts it apeared that he was tazed multiple times then started swearing.

If you read my whole post, I'm not saying the cops were definetly in the wrong. Just saying from the video with no other information ... it looked quite bad for the cops.

Again though ... awsome response.
 
Originally posted by: tangent1138
"LAist has a great rundown of the history of Terrence Duren, an 18-year veteran of the UCPD and the 'taser-happy' officer in last week's incident. Among his greatest hits, it seems that he's been fired from a 'real' police force, recommended by the University for dismissal after choking a frat boy with a night stick (UCPD just suspended him), and tried after *shooting a homeless man* (who survived)."

Duren hasn't had the smoothest career in law enforcement. He came to Westwood after being fired from the infamous Long Beach PD. A few years after being hired by UCLA he was accused of using his nightstick to choke a fratboy and the university asked the UCPD to fire Duren, but he was only given a three month suspension.
In late 2003 Duren shot a homeless man, Willie Davis Frazier, Jr., in a Kerckhoff Hall bathroom. Frazier, who attempted at first to shun lawyers and represent himself, was imbalanced enough to spend time in mental institution as the court tried to figure out if he was fit to stand trial.

During a 2004 preliminary hearing in which Duren testified against Frazier, the officer carried a Machiavelli book into court, "The Prince", which argues that the ends justifies the means. "Did you know that this was Tupac's favorite book?" he asked.
Click to expand...

MT + Fraizier = Average nasty confrontation.

These two personalities are like oil and water.

Mix in a camera phone and YouTube though and we've got something that at first looks like it's worth discussing.
 
Originally posted by: Crusader
That fvcking liberal got what was coming to him.

Respect authority. You do your mouthing off and resistance in court. Not on the scene.

Dragged out of there like common street scum.
Which he is.
Whats he complaining about the Patriot Act for? Is he a terrorist?????
That dirtball should be tossed in prison.

When you resist authority you are rebelling against the US govt. And since this is a republic, when you resist authority you are resisting the will of the American people.
This "man" is nothing but an enemy of the state, at least in the making.
Click to expand...

Nevermind, just saw the sarcasm 😉



 
Man I can't stay up all night to read this thread. I got halfway through the first page and lost interest.

My vote: Another case of cops that are tazer happy. WTF happened to the days of handcuffing a guy and dragging his ass outside. There was a couple cops right? Nowadays you look at a cop funny and he tazers you.



 
Originally posted by: VooDooAddict
Nice.

From my impression of the video, before reading time logged transcripts it apeared that he was tazed multiple times then started swearing.

If you read my whole post, I'm not saying the cops were definetly in the wrong. Just saying from the video with no other information ... it looked quite bad for the cops.

Again though ... awsome response.
Click to expand...
Thanks. I'm glad you appreciated my reply. 🙂

New articles on the Daily Bruin:
Officer named in Taser incident
Paired Viewpoint satire pieces: Trust me, I'm a Daily Bruin columnist: Column 1 Column 2

Column 1:
Much attention has been focused on a study that said Taser use of three to five seconds can cause temporary inability to move one's muscles for up to 15 minutes.

This means that if Tabatabainejad was stunned with the Taser for more than three seconds, he would have been physically unable to respond to the officers' commands to stand up.
Click to expand...
Column 2:
The police were demanding that Tabatabainejad stand up, while simultaneously sending electricity through his nervous system, something that could paralyze him temporarily if the shocks were longer than three seconds.
Click to expand...
While I appreciate the point of the "Trust me" pieces as being a recommendation to step back and avoid jumping to conclusions, it concerns me that the reference to the Lancet article is again done in misleading language.

My earlier post covers the Lancet article in more detail.
The Lancet, Effects of stun guns and tasers.(Commentary)(Brief Article), September 1, 2001
For example, electrodes 5 cm apart [as in a Taser in "drive stun" mode] applied directly over the vastus lateralis muscle [side of the thigh] does not inhibit voluntary function of the muscle during stimulation or afterwards....

The degree of sensation evoked by these devices can result in a response that far outlasts the duration of the current, so discharges of 3-5 s may leave the victim immobilised, dazed, and weak for 5-15 min.
Click to expand...
Briefly: a Taser in "drive stun" does not affect motor function directly, but the pain it causes may daze or disorient the target.
 
Based on the video, it looks like the guy was continuing to sit on the floor and NOT leave the building, basically getting tazered multiple times because he wouldn't leave.
Now whether the first shot at him was justified, I couldn't tell from the movie. And if the shot prevented him from moving out afterwards (messed up his muscles?), that's unclear too. But I didn't hear "I CAN'T GET UP" afterwards, It sounded like the guy on the ground was still resisting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top