If anyone here is approving of the cops behavior then maybe they should at least understand what being tasered feels like. It's like getting hit by a train. So sudden, and so hard.
Im not condoning what the cops did, in fact, I think they took advantage of their authority and of their tasers. But that kid was asking for trouble. If not getting tasered, he deserved to be punched in the face or dragged out.
The kid was handcuffed on the ground.
Why dont I handcuff your hands behind your back and then shock you and see if you get up right away.
The cops were wrong on so many levels in this incident.
Why dont I handcuff your hands behind your back and then shock you and see if you get up right away.
The cops were wrong on so many levels in this incident.
He was singled out. Not everyone was asked to show ID, so why the hell should he have to show his ID?
The computer systems have University Log-Ins, meaning you cannot log into the system without an ID.
There is no rule saying you have to have an ID for the computer lab. This is from UCLA students.
Asking for trouble? Punched in the face or dragged out?
How about we mace all the kids who cry in the supermarket begging for candy?
Chinese water torture for people that are late on their car payment?
I didnt know that he was handcuffed on the ground. In that case, he didnt deserve to be tased, unless they tased him before he was handcuffed. I know the cops were wrong in this incident, especially when they ordered the kid to get up after being tased. I dont disagree with you there.
But it's hard to sympathize with someone who was clearly looking to start trouble. I dont sympathize with those people who get pulled over, refuse to get out of the car, and end up getting tased. And I dont sympathize with this kid who did not leave the computer lab when asked to. If he really thought it was a profiling issue, the computer lab was not the place to fight it.
Well, then apparently he was singled out. But is the computer lab the right place to fight it? I think not.
I didn't think so but I'd hate to think that anyone would wish harm on this guy. He wasn't a threat.
I'd rather they tazer the a-holes who watch porn in the computer lab.
I'd rather they tazer the a-holes who watch porn in the computer lab.
I would fight it if some random guy came up to me at my school computer lab and asked me to show ID. I would tell him to buzz off.
I would get furious that he singled me out over all the other students, or that he singled out a select few.
It was late at night and the guy wasn't in the computer lab playing a game. He was probably writting an essay that was due very soon. Why should he have to leave because his rights were violated?
In this country if you put your head down and take that kind of BS treatment while you are a minority then you are not going to get anywhere.
I am sure 99% of the people in this thread would act the same way. If the computer tech (whoever he is) came up to one of you and only you in the computer lab and asked you to leave you would be like NO. Why would you stop writting your essay that is due, get an F, and simply walk out the door with your head down
I would get furious that he singled me out over all the other students, or that he singled out a select few.
It was late at night and the guy wasn't in the computer lab playing a game. He was probably writting an essay that was due very soon. Why should he have to leave because his rights were violated?
In this country if you put your head down and take that kind of BS treatment while you are a minority then you are not going to get anywhere.
I am sure 99% of the people in this thread would act the same way. If the computer tech (whoever he is) came up to one of you and only you in the computer lab and asked you to leave you would be like NO. Why would you stop writting your essay that is due, get an F, and simply walk out the door with your head down
if they were enforcing a policy of checking ID's then they should be doing it in a consistent manner.
The growing consesus on this form seems to be towards the conlcusion that the officers involved were not judicious in their approach to the situation and use of the taser.
I have a feeling MT is going to be doing a number on UCPD and the university itself for not appropriately controlling it's policies.
The growing consesus on this form seems to be towards the conlcusion that the officers involved were not judicious in their approach to the situation and use of the taser.
I have a feeling MT is going to be doing a number on UCPD and the university itself for not appropriately controlling it's policies.
Well, if I am in my schools lab, and security asks me for ID or I have to leave, I would comply. If it's policy, then it's policy and theres nothing I can do about it. Now, if I believe that he/she singled me out because of my appearance, I would question why other's werent asked, and if I wasnt satisifed with that answer and I believe that discrimination had occured, I'd leave and fight my battle formally.
I agree with you about standing up for yourself. But fighting a security officer in the computer lab wont get you anywhere but on the floor and tased. The smart thing to do would be to file a formal complaint in person to administration and demand an answer.
I was in a similar situation. I was at the airport a few months ago waiting in line with my carry-on baggage and my ticket to board a plane. As we were boarding, there was some guys looking at and scanning the tickets and then allowing them to board the plane. Now keep in mind, my carry-on baggage met the airlines size specifications (I checked online before I left my house.) When I presented the guy with my ticket, he looked at my ticket, and told me I had to check my luggage. I said why and he told me it was too large. I told him I had checked the website and it met the size requirements. He still told me it was too large. I looked around at other passengers and noticed they all had the same size or larger carry on baggage. Now, at this point, I suspected that the guy noticed my last name on the boarding pass (middle eastern last name) and made a judgement at that point. Now I could have fought it right then and there, and I'd probably be arrested or tasered or possibly worse. Instead, I said fine, I let him check my baggage and I didnt personally take it on board with me. After my trip, I filed a formal complaint with Southwest airlines. I wrote a formal letter and demanded an explanation. I also told them I would be sharing this experience with others. They contacted me back twice. Now in my eyes, I avoided a situation that could have turned very bad, and I still fought my situation; I fought it the smart way.
I think they should take their "hall pass monitors" (CSO) and Campus Police and tazer them in front of the whole school. Then they should rub mace in their eyes.
Then they should set a policy in place that checks everyone for ID as they enter if that's what they want and feel so strongly about it.
At my university anyone could be there but you had to have ID to use the computer. Even then you could use it but you'd probably get booted for someone who did have their ID with them.
To think that I could have been tazered for arguing with a guy about not having my student ID card with me is ridiculous. I would have told the CSO to f-off too. He can ride his big wheel police car somewhere else.
At my other university they had a turnstyle type enterence where you couldn't get in without sliding your card. That worked fine.
Then they should set a policy in place that checks everyone for ID as they enter if that's what they want and feel so strongly about it.
At my university anyone could be there but you had to have ID to use the computer. Even then you could use it but you'd probably get booted for someone who did have their ID with them.
To think that I could have been tazered for arguing with a guy about not having my student ID card with me is ridiculous. I would have told the CSO to f-off too. He can ride his big wheel police car somewhere else.
At my other university they had a turnstyle type enterence where you couldn't get in without sliding your card. That worked fine.
krunchykrome, thank you for your thoughtful consideration of the incident and your anecdote, which adds perspective.
SP33Demon, I am having a little difficulty with your use of bold and italics to differentiate quoted text. If I miss one of your points as a result, please feel free to request a response to that specific point in a new post.
Do you think that considering a "herky-jerky homemade video" as the only valid evidence is consistent? Furthermore, is it consistent that MT and the white-shirted student receive the benefit of reasonable doubt while the officer threatening Tasering does not?
I looked up "interfering with an officer." It appears that this could reasonably apply to the white-shirted student who stood near the officers, gesticulated and shouted, and would not respond to repeated requests to step back until threatened.
"Drive stun" or projectile mode?
I responded to the "singled out" claim in a previous post. I don't remember reading your reply.
Do you have a link? This claim is not inconsistent with what I've read. Do you know if passage between the CLICC and the rest of the library (i.e. the "large study room" mentioned below) is restricted?
This is a reasonable theory for why MT was in the CLICC. Considering the urgent essay, does it make more sense to produce ID quickly or to refuse?
SP33Demon, I am having a little difficulty with your use of bold and italics to differentiate quoted text. If I miss one of your points as a result, please feel free to request a response to that specific point in a new post.
I understood your writing "obviously disoriented/dazed" to mean that his condition was visibly or audibly apparent when you watched the video. If that were the case, a reasonable and/or unbiased person should be able to review the video and conclude that your claim is plausible. Did you mean something else?
Based on the quoted statement (which is not a direct quote from Greenstein), I'm not convinced that the sergeant on duty was present. Note the independent clause - the sergeant on duty may have been mentioned because he is responsible for overseeing the officers. From roughly 1:30 to 2:00, the camera stays reasonably stationary and 3 officers are clearly visible. I make no claims regarding the presence or position of the fourth.
I'm reasonably sure that you're incorrect, since if the student presented a credible physical threat, the officer is allowed to respond with force itself, not just threatening it.
Do you think that considering a "herky-jerky homemade video" as the only valid evidence is consistent? Furthermore, is it consistent that MT and the white-shirted student receive the benefit of reasonable doubt while the officer threatening Tasering does not?
I didn't claim that their attempted intervention was unlawful. The point was 1) that MT did specific actions that could be reasonably expected to excite the other students and 2) other students attempted to intervene, including before the first "stun," and became more excited. Whether 1 directly caused 2 is arguable, but this is the likely basis for "inciting to riot."
I looked up "interfering with an officer." It appears that this could reasonably apply to the white-shirted student who stood near the officers, gesticulated and shouted, and would not respond to repeated requests to step back until threatened.
I address "inciting to riot" above. The Daily Bruin article's and your definition of resistance are interpretations of what the wording of the police report meant.
This a statement without a valid premise:
The definition of a credible pyshcial threat to a police officer that is certified to use a taser is this;
There is no lawful premise within the repubic that would will shield such action on the part of a civil lawsuit. Those cowboys are fvcked.
Rogo
The definition of a credible pyshcial threat to a police officer that is certified to use a taser is this;
There is no lawful premise within the repubic that would will shield such action on the part of a civil lawsuit. Those cowboys are fvcked.
Rogo
SP33Demon
Lifer
- Jun 22, 2001
- 27,928
- 142
- 106
No wonder you're having trouble reading my post, who the heck wants to read 2 pages of your nested quotes? Rofl if you think I'm going to use the same format you use.
1st rule of any debate: Make the posts easy to read.
2) I pretty much stopped reading your post when you said you didn't believe the Bruin newspaper that reported that Nancy Greenstein (UCPD director) said there were at least 4 + sergeant on duty at the scene. The fact that you need a "direct quote" from Nancy is hilarious. Why don't you call her up if you honestly think the Bruin newspaper would lie about something like that? Assuming that the school newspaper is lying is absurd, just because there weren't "direct quotes" from Nancy. lol
3) You are unsure of whether MT OR the officers excited the students. So which is it? The fact there is already uncertainty means it will not hold up in court that MT definitively, beyond a reasonable doubt "excited" the students. That said, even giving the cops the benefit of the doubt that MT did in fact "excite" them, students who are "excited" have every right to be "excited" under the constitution. Your assumption that being in the state of excitement is the "likely basis for inciting a riot" is absurd IMO. There are many peaceful protests where people are excited but will not riot.
4) The guy in the white shirt was visibily excited and he had the right to be. He didn't physically nor verbally threaten the officer in any way, shape, or form that I saw in the vid, to warrant the officer's threat back to him. Nothing he did was out of his constitutional rights, no law was broken. The officer was out of line in what he said, all he had to say was MOVE BACK a couple times. Not MOVE BACK OR I'LL TASER YOU.
Without seeing the entire incident clearly from start to finish there is no way to pass judgment on the actions that anyone took.
Also this thread is very very long now.
Also this thread is very very long now.
Ctrl-F search on bold text.
Points for Rogodin2:
Points for SP33Demon:
Do you have a link to your quoted source? I wasn't able to find it by Googling for "use of a taser" "California Department of Justice". I did find this:
The content of your posts suggest that you are attempting to engage me in debate, but I am not interested in persuasion.
If you had produced this citation, I would not have disputed your total count of the officers (6 here). However, this quote says that Duren and Bicomong arrived together without giving specific timing of the arrivals of the other officers.
Points for Rogodin2:
- Do you claim that "the use of a taser" includes threatening to use it?
- Do you have a link to your quoted source? You attribute it to the California Department of Justice, but it appears to be correctly attributed to the New Zealand Police.
Points for SP33Demon:
- The content of your posts suggest that you are attempting to engage me in debate, but I am not interested in persuasion.
- The two articles disagree (Daily Bruin versus LA Times), re: officer count.
- The officer tells the student to back up 3 times before threatening.
Do you claim that "the use of a taser" includes threatening to use it? If not, none of this applies, as the officer in question did not use his Taser.
Do you have a link to your quoted source? I wasn't able to find it by Googling for "use of a taser" "California Department of Justice". I did find this:
I've placed lists of questions at the top of my post. One may Ctrl-F to find their place in the full text below. I hope that this addition is to your liking. My recent posts have been predominantly comprised of quoting my earlier posts to this thread. My intention is to address re-raised points while making it clear that they have been addressed already.
The content of your posts suggest that you are attempting to engage me in debate, but I am not interested in persuasion.
I did not write explicitly or imply that I believed that the Daily Bruin was "lying". The written text is rather awkward for speech, so it is unlikely that the transcription is exact.
If you had produced this citation, I would not have disputed your total count of the officers (6 here). However, this quote says that Duren and Bicomong arrived together without giving specific timing of the arrivals of the other officers.
Also note the difference in the spelling of Bickamong/Bicomong and the omission of Bolanos from the Daily Bruin article. The two articles disagree - they can't both be 100% correct.
Determining whether MT or the officers was more responsible requires the addition of assumptions, and I choose not to make that judgment. I wrote "likely basis" meaning exactly that - if I meant "reasonable" or "acceptable", I would have written it. As it turns out, MT was not charged with "inciting to riot", so this whole sub-discussion is irrelevant.
Please review the video from 6:35. The officer tells the student to back up 3 times before threatening. The student responds to the third order by gesturing, not by complying.
No one gave a valid retort to my proposition-hence all comments are irrelevant and now about apple pie and the conception of your births.
Rogo
Rogo
Skunkwourk
Diamond Member
- Dec 9, 2004
- 4,662
- 1
- 81
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter