Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Students Put UCLA Taser Video On YouTube

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Tue Nov 21, 2006 12:34 AM
from the police-buddhism-studies dept.
dircha writes "As widely reported, an incident in which Iranian-American student Mostafa Tabatabainejad was tasered up to five times by UCLA police on Friday, has been captured by a fellow student using a video enabled cell phone and published to YouTube. From the Daily Bruin: 'At around 11:30 p.m. Tuesday, Tabatabainejad, a fourth-year Middle Eastern and North African studies and philosophy student, was asked to leave the library for failing to present his BruinCard during a random check. The 23-year-old student was hit with a Taser five times when he did not leave quickly and cooperatively upon being asked to do so.' In a story which has raised concerns of racial profiling, police brutality and the health risks of taser use, the ubiquity of video cell phone technology has given us a first hand record of an incident which might otherwise have been a he-said, she-said affair. While the publishing of the video to YouTube has given the issue compelling popular exposure beyond the immediate campus community."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by DragonPup (302885) on Tuesday November 21 2006, @12:38AM (#16925716)
    ...if after watching this video, you see what the LAPD(and by extension, the UCLA PD) are willing to do on camera, and in front of dozens of witnesses, what do they do without people watching?

    And am I the only one that upon hearing, Police burtality" and "Caught of tape" are completely unsurprised the LAPD are somehow involved?

    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2006, @12:45AM (#16925772)
      The UCPD is not a part of the LAPD. The UCPD is a separate law enforcement agency with the same powers as CHP officers run by the University of California.
    • by Trekologer (86619) <<ten.regolokert> <ta> <bda>> on Tuesday November 21 2006, @12:47AM (#16925786) Homepage
      The officers in this video are either the dumbest cops in the world, to repediately brutalize that young man not only on video but with literally dozens of witnesses. Or they think that because of the uniform they wear, that they are above the law. It doesn't matter which one it is, those animals should be out of a job and in jail. The video did not show everything but there is at least one part where the man is clearly on the floor and is tazed again, sending his body upward in a horiffic spasm.
      • by kfg (145172) on Tuesday November 21 2006, @12:56AM (#16925878)
        The officers in this video are either the dumbest cops in the world. . .

        Let us stipulate for the moment, just for the sake of argument, that the first Tasing was justified.

        Their insistence that he get on his feet or they would tase him again is all the proof we need that they were not the brightest bulbs in the pack. The function of a Taser shock is to disable by disrupting nerve and muscle function.

        If you could stand up after being Tased they wouldn't be using them in the first place.

        KFG
          • by localman (111171) on Tuesday November 21 2006, @02:20AM (#16926672) Homepage
            The current taser models override the voluntary muscle nerve impulses and cause the body to tense for the duration it's firing. Once it's off you're back to normal within a few seconds, with the exception of the adrenaline rush.

            This isn't what I've seen. Just last month an acquaintance of mine, a police officer in Indiana, offered to dress like Keith Richards and be tasered on stage for five seconds while "Start Me Up" played. No, I'm serious... it was a contest put on by a radio station to give away backstage passes for the Stones concert: whoever did the craziest thing, determined by judges and crowd reaction, got the tickets.

            Anyways, he had been tasered before as part of his training, so this was his second time. The MC shot him across stage with the electrodes (they go quite far) and then juiced him for five seconds straight. He stiffened like a board and two bouncers helped him to fall safely face down on the ground. And there he lay for at least 30 seconds wihout moving: despite his best efforts, he could not get up. In fact, the crowd was mostly silent and occasionally gasping as we thought he might be dead. Eventually, with the help of the bouncers he was able to regain his feet. He won the tickets. But he was moving in slow motion for another 15-30 minutes and complained that he felt like shit for the rest of the night.

            In any case, I'm just saying that when they turn off the taser, at least some of the time, the victim cannot get right back up as you claim. So telling someone "get up or I'll taser you again" is absolutely moronic.

            Cheers.
          • by Walt Dismal (534799) on Tuesday November 21 2006, @03:16AM (#16927218)
            It is conceivable that the student could have been so shaken, fearful, and angry he literally could not stand up, that he would prefer to just sit there and try to recover. I've seen Taser demonstrations where people could not get up after even a short 1-2 second burst (a TV newswoman for example). Further, had the student had any sort of pre-existing medical condition such as a heart condition or weakness caused by (legal) medications, he certainly would have justified in not responding to the 'get up' demands. Finally, by the third time he'd been Tasered, he is likely to have been quite weak and shaky regardless. Judging by the level of his repeated screams, I'd estimate that his heart rate accelerated a lot and he was weak with systemic shock. Long ago, when I was chased and shot at the first few times, I trembled from the adrenal rush and got weak and shaky too. This kid went through a combat experience, in effect.

            Failure to show a piece of paper is no justification for the brutality shown. There was utterly no justifiable reason for the patrolmen to not have handled this in a more humane way. The school deserves whatever financial justice the UCLA alumni choose to visit upon them for hiring dumb thugs to 'protect' the students. Do not donate when solicited by UCLA. Make them hurt.

            The video was the sickest thing I've witnessed recently, unless you count watching parts of the movie "Saw".

          • by Shaper_pmp (825142) on Tuesday November 21 2006, @05:15AM (#16928048)
            "The current taser models override the voluntary muscle nerve impulses and cause the body to tense for the duration it's firing. Once it's off you're back to normal within a few seconds, with the exception of the adrenaline rush."

            Ummmmm... no [tbotech.com].

            Tasers work by using electrical shocks to rapidly contract and release your muscles. This has the very short-term effect of making you lose voluntary control of those muscles, but it also depletes the ATP (your muscles' "fuel"). A half-second burst will make you twitch violently and go "Ow". A 1-2 second burst will daze your attacker. 3-2 seconds will cause loss of balance, disorientation, and will leave you "passive and confused" for several minutes.

            A decent taser jolt (or, say, 5 or so jolts in quick succession) will effectively empty your muscles of ATP - your muscles literally have no fuel to contract, so you simply can't move them. Once the tazing stops your body will begin to resupply ATP to the muscles faster than it's being used up... but you'll be weak, shaky and possibly incapable of walking or standing up for several minutes.

            "Almost everyone is able to get right back up if they choose to do so, especially if people are trying to pull them up from under the arms as it appears those officers were trying to do at one point in the video."

            You've obviously read simplified reports of what happens when someone is given a single half-second burst. This is not the case for longer or repeated bursts.
            • by GreyPoopon (411036) <`gpoopon' `at' `gmail.com'> on Tuesday November 21 2006, @02:43AM (#16926886)
              The second time they tased him, I would've gotten as many students as I could together, pulled the police off of him and formed a circle around him several layers deep if necessary.
              Better think twice about that. Best case, you would have been expelled from the university. Most likely, you would have been arrested yourself, and there's a better than even chance that you or one of the students who helped you would end up being shot. I really don't think you want to turn what was a clear incident involving police brutality into the death of one or more students. The student who filmed the thing on his phone did the right thing. In the end, I'm pretty sure that three police officers will be making a career change and the victim, should he choose to file suit, will be sucking the police department dry.
                • by 1u3hr (530656) on Tuesday November 21 2006, @03:52AM (#16927490)
                  Fine, call it racial profiling, but when I see an Iranian without a student ID, acting belligerent, carrying a backpack into a crowded place, I hope the police take whatever action is necessary to get him the hell out of there.

                  Idiotic. If he did happen to be a suicide bomber, as you imply, he would detonate himself the moment the guards approached him. And actually he was American born, and no doubt rather pissed at being anal probed at every opportunity. Have you ever been in a university library? Half the patrons are scruffy, bearded, belligerant and with backpacks.

                  • by Yusaku Godai (546058) <hyuga@@@guardian-hyuga...net> on Tuesday November 21 2006, @04:47AM (#16927890) Homepage
                    Exactly. While my university's library does not have a random ID check policy, I can certainly see it now. Sitting in the library late at night struggling to finish an important paper--definitely scruffy, bearded, and belligerant. Some idiot cop who could not possibly comprehend the gravity and brilliance of my work (I'm being facetious here, nor am I anti-police in general; this is just what I might think to myself in such a frustrating situation) comes along and interrupts my train of thought and tells me I have to pack up and leave immediately.

                    No way in hell I'd move. I'd at least stay around to finish up that last thought, if possible, and then I'd leave. Which is apparently more or less how it happened. They told him to leave, but he did not right away. By the time they came back to haul him off, he had already finished packing his stuff and was on his way out when they stopped him. At such I point, I would no longer be in the mood to fuck around. I think maybe screaming about it was uncalled for, and he might have been able to handle it better. But if the whole thing went down anything like I described, and it seems likely, I can certainly relate to his plight.
                  • by Mark_MF-WN (678030) on Tuesday November 21 2006, @04:33AM (#16927788)
                    Hey, Timothy McVeigh converted to Islam. He converted posthumously, but he did do it. Word is that his ancestors, long ago, came out of Africa. So he was also, in point of fact, black. A black muslim terrorist? That's all I need. And don't even get started on Ted Kaczynski. I have it on good authority that he was a wiccan Nazi -- just look at the name! I'm surprised he didn't start lobbing V2 rockets at London. James Garfield was really trampled to death by wild mustangs. James Hinckley Jr was actually a Canadian with a forged birth certificate.

                    The simple fact is, Americans aren't terrorists. Anyone who tells you otherwise has been corrupted by public education, sharing, or evolutionists.

      • by dthree (458263) <chaoslite@h o t mail.com> on Tuesday November 21 2006, @02:34AM (#16926816) Homepage
        And did you catch the part near the end when the cop tells one of the students standing there watching that if he doesn't step back he will get tasered, too?
      • by ad0gg (594412) on Tuesday November 21 2006, @01:07AM (#16925996)
        Not standing up isn't physically resisting. Thats like saying a comatose paitent was resisting arrest because it refused they refused to standup. Tasers should be used for somone actually physically resisting which results in threat, if i let my body go limp, i'm not resisting. Resisting actually requires you to actively do something, like trying to prevent the officer from hand cuffing you. A limp body allows the cop to safely handcuff you. Its all comes down to threat. Some going limp isn't a threat and taser should not have applied. So the cops have to work extra and carry the guy. Oh noes.

        Taser should never be used to make you do something. It should be used to stop you from doing something. IE struggling with an officer, refusing to lay down on the ground, locking your arms so you can be hand cuffed. Using a taser to force you do something is borderline torture.

        • by rkcallaghan (858110) on Tuesday November 21 2006, @02:00AM (#16926482)
          ad0ggwrote:
          Using a taser to force you do something is borderline torture.
          Let's not start the doublespeak here on Slashdot. Using [electric shocks] to force someone to do something is torture.

          Fixed that for ya. So when the police are torturing people in the middle of a school in front of everyone; are we a police state yet? Was it some other kind of "worse" that "other countries have" that everyone meant when they blew off those that have said so before?

          ~Rebecca
            • by Shaper_pmp (825142) on Tuesday November 21 2006, @05:26AM (#16928110)
              Twat.

              Or, instead of shooting him they could have acted like:

              1. Adults with a functioning sense of empathy
              2. People employed as government servants to protect the people
              3. Agents of the government of a functioning democracy
              4. A group of half-a-dozen people trying to get one, smaller, nonviolent person to move

              And just left him there or carried him out peacefully.

              At what point does repeatedly tasing an unarmed civilian, already on the floor, constitute "reasonable force"?

              The key message here wasn't "we want you out of the library" - if that was the case they would have carried him - it was "you will submit and do what we say, or we will continue to cause you pain until you do".

              And that, my friend, is torture.
      • by falcon5768 (629591) <Falcon5768 AT comcast DOT net> on Tuesday November 21 2006, @01:07AM (#16926004) Journal
        If you listen to the tape, after the first incident he stopped resisting, the cops on the otherhand continued to tazer him because he wouldnt (in their eyes) get up despite police protocol being very clear that it can take 10 - 15 minutes for a suspect to get over being tazered.

        The second time was questionable, the third fourth and fifth equals them going after him and attacking him. Add in more than one witness being threatened by the cops for filming and or asking their badge number (which by law every cop in the entire country MUST do regardless of who they are and whatever the officers claim)and its quite clear the officers where untrained in a potential riot situation, or where out for blood after the students started questioning their motives and thought that the easiest way to scare of the gathering crowd of 40-60 people would be to torture the suspect in front of them.

        Fortunately for all involved all three officers are likely losing their jobs as well as their chief and the intern chancellor for starters.

        • by jimicus (737525) on Tuesday November 21 2006, @03:49AM (#16927458) Homepage
          Myself, I find it rather disturbing that three police officers were able to continue brutalising this chap for a full 6 minutes with dozens of people looking on, and the most that happened was someone piped up "Can I have your badge number?"

          That behaviour, combined with the refusal to give a badge number, would have me dialling emergency services and saying "Three men impersonating police officers are attacking a student" because quite frankly, that's what it looks like.
        • You are correct - to a point.

          If you are given lawful instructions by a police officer, you are a damn fool not to listen to them.

          However, if you are ordered to do something that you feel violates your civil rights by someone that you feel is racially profiling or discriminating against you based on the color of your skin, and surrounded by people that can back you up (with testimony, video or photo evidence) you're a fool not to employ non-violent resistance in protest.

          It looks to me like this situation straddles the line. Lawful orders given by officers that may have acted on prejudice, and followed it up with excessive force. Ugly for -everyone- involved, but far, far worse for the officers. There were three officers, and I'm sure the situation could have been handled a hell of a lot better.

          And as to tasers and the lingering effect, that differs depending on the individual. Some people can get up and walk, some people can't move extremities with any serious control, and I've seen some people that could -barely- talk when they were hit. It's perfectly reasonable to say this guy might not have been able to control his limbs well enough to give the officers what they wanted (even if he was so inclined).

          This was neither a case of a completely innocent person being tasered, nor was it a case of officers being abusive dicks for the fun of it. It straddled the line. But in any case where you have the line being straddled like this, the people with the authority, the guns, the tasers and the nightsticks are the ones most at fault. They were entrusted with authority to uphold and represent the law, and they misused it. Do I think they should be fired? Not sure - but an investigation should definitely be conducted.

          As to the scenario you point out at the end of your post, I have to say that on the -surface- of it, that's a completely bullshit charge against the officers. I just read an article on that particular incident, so I know the specifics of what you're referring to, and I have to say I completely agree that it sounds like a justifiable shoot.

          But this tasering isn't nearly the same sort of situation. The officers were not (from what I saw/heard) being threatened with harm, nor was anyone else. The officers made unrealistic demands once he -was- tasered, and were treating him like a violent suspect which was not the case from what I was able to make out on that video.
          • by vertical_98 (463483) on Tuesday November 21 2006, @03:28AM (#16927304) Homepage
            You are correct. The police officers in this case should have either removed the man by force (ala Rodney King) or just given up and gone home. "Oh, we couldn't do anything. He said 'no'."

            Thats the stupidest f**king thing I have ever heard. Granted I haven't been in college since 87, but I KNOW that 5 officers can pick up and carry a 200lb man. (he didn't look that big, but police say he is, so maybe) The first shock may have been righteous (don't know, don't care). Once the handcuffs where on, the man could be laying on the ground shouting 'I f**ked you daughter', and you still don't get to taser him again. Thats when it crosses the line. What they should have done was defused the situation by leaving him on the ground passive and shouting like a fool and asking the students to back up. Then those 5 cops I counted in the video could have carried his ass out the nearest exit. It doesn't matter if he was an asshole or a jerk or a retard shouting 'I want Jesus', he was passive not combative.
          • by Walt Dismal (534799) on Tuesday November 21 2006, @03:46AM (#16927444)
            The 'tasers' were the small close-range type, not the dart with wires type. You could hear the air-discharge from close point-electrodes even over the cellphone video audio. The problem is, this type is not as current-controlled as the official Taser brand-name type, and it is easy for a fool to pass enough current into the chest to actually cause heart defibrillation if he applies it incautiously on the torso. These weapons should not have been in security guard hands. Hell, they should not even be available for sale unlicensed, but they are, widely. Plenty of cheap Asian import models all over, unregulated. Even been used by muggers and rapists.

            Maybe it's time to start wearing copper-mesh-impregnated shirts if this is the wave of the future.

  • Sick (Score:5, Insightful)

    by twifosp (532320) on Tuesday November 21 2006, @12:41AM (#16925738)
    This was pretty sick. If you get hit by a tazer it's pretty impossible to stand up for at least a few minutes. That's the entire point of a tazer. They could have just handcuffed him and carried him out. I hope these "officers" go to jail.
          • Re:Sick (Score:5, Interesting)

            by ildon (413912) on Tuesday November 21 2006, @01:42AM (#16926304)
            If anyone other than myself had actually read any articles about this, you'd know that the library had instituted a policy of randomly asking people for their student ID's after 11 PM because of a history of sexual assaults within the library at night.
  • Wow (Score:5, Funny)

    by Macadoshis (893254) on Tuesday November 21 2006, @12:44AM (#16925756)
    After watching that video I'm shocked.

    /duck

  • by SRA8 (859587) on Tuesday November 21 2006, @12:47AM (#16925788)
    I keep hearing people complaining "if he had just listened" or "all he had to do was get up." But seriously, think about it -- should he really have been tased repeatedly or simply arrested?
    1. After being shocked repeatedly, could he even have been ABLE to "just" stand up?
    2. After being shocked repeatedly, would be have been in a mental state to understand the cops' commands?
    3. He was on the floor. An irritating act, but something deserving electrocution?
    4. What if someone asks for a warrant, should they also get electrocuted. After all "all he had to do was let them search."

    Put simply, this was WRONG. The kid deserves to be arrested, NOT electrocuted. To those of you who say "tasing is non-lethal," well, i dare you to do it to yourself. Post a video on YouTube to prove it.
      • by quantaman (517394) on Tuesday November 21 2006, @01:14AM (#16926064)
        Next time try reading the ENTIRE story. You'll find out why he was shocked repeatedly. If he hadn't been such a jackass in the first place the cops would have never even been involved. You idiots seem to think that cops go around randomly tazoring foreign-looking people.

        Maybe he was in the wrong. Maybe he was looking for an excuse to feel persecuted. Maybe he was looking for a fight. But the last thing the police should be looking to do is to give him that fight.

        The job of police is to maintain order and diffuse tense situations, force is something that should be used as a last resort and not something to be applied at the earliest opportunity.

        p.s. The reaction of the crowd told me that not only did none of them consider him a threat but that the police actions were only serving to increase the risk of violence by driving the crowd of students to physically intervene to stop the police.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2006, @12:47AM (#16925790)
    first hand account [tuckermax.com]
    Yes, I was indeed at Powell Library at approximately 11:30 on Tuesday night, and yes I did see the entire event as it went down.

    Let me start off by saying that the guy DEFINITELY was asking to get his ass kicked. He was being extremely rude with the campus patrol guys (who are college students...this was before the real UCPD got called in). He was not complying with their requests to leave the premises, and he was definitely itching for a fight. I actually know the guy and a few of his friends, and I can tell you that he's the kind of guy that loves to make trouble.

    Just as a little backstory, one of the quotes the guy has on his facebook (which he now has taken down) was "I like to find the most difficult solutions to the simplest of problems".

    He definitely taunted the UCPD into behaving the way they did with him.

    • by Daniel Dvorkin (106857) * on Tuesday November 21 2006, @01:02AM (#16925940) Homepage Journal
      It is a cop's job to deal professionally (which includes not using excessive force) with people who are causing trouble. If they can't do it without going apeshit on the guy, they shouldn't be cops.

      A civilian who reacted like this to somebody taunting him, arguing with him, whatever, would be headed to prison for aggravated assault. Cops, because of their position of power, should face even harsher penalties for such behavior.
        • bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Scudsucker (17617) on Tuesday November 21 2006, @01:57AM (#16926466) Homepage Journal
          First, we're not catching anything before the video, which firsthand accounts make it seem like the guy should be tasered.

          Based on what.

          Second, they repeatedly warned him before tasing him each time.

          Irrelevant. They had no business tasering a handcuffed suspect for being uncooperative.

          Third, according to firsthand accounts and the story, he was provoking the crowd.

          Watch the video. He wasn't doing anything more than screaming "here's your Patriot Act, here's your fucking abuse of power."

          Sure, it looks like the cops overreacted, but not to the extent that you're saying.

          Yes, they did, and they belong in jail for assault.
    • by _iris (92554) on Tuesday November 21 2006, @01:13AM (#16926060) Homepage
      That matters not, my friend. Police are trained, for good reason, to detain someone with the least force necessary. Anything beyond is police brutality. Part of being a police officer is being able to withstand taunting (and much worse) without losing your composure and being able to follow the official protocols for detaining someone. I could not be a police officer. If I was a police officer and I had to witness some of the things they have to, I would probably punish the suspects outside the system, to put it gently. Police are professionals precisely because we need enforcers who can deal with precisely these situations without brutalizing anyone, even if the suspect wants to be brutalized.
    • by identity0 (77976) on Tuesday November 21 2006, @03:16AM (#16927208) Journal
      Sorry, but I think the term "Philosophy student" in the summary says it all.

      Keep in mind, that "I like to find the most difficult solutions to the simplest of problems" and "he's the kind of guy that loves to make trouble" are not the same thing as being a violent person. In fact, this is exactly the kind of mindset you'd expect from a philosophy major with an interest in the philosophy of non-violent resistance and individual rights.

      A real criminal doesn't refuse to show ID and stand his ground with the cops, they would get the hell out of there before it escalates. Making a scene like that is exactly the kind of thing a libertarian with an attitude or a leftie into protest politics does. Remember that guy who went to the Supreme Court over not showing cops his drivers licence? I bet this guy also had his ID in his pocket, he just wanted to make a point about requiring it.

      That "he urged others to join his resistance and a crowd began to gather" (from the ABC story) sounds like he was trying to make a political point. That he knew to "fall limp to the floor" also seems to indicate he was at least aware of non-violent protest tactics. His middle eastern ethnicity and Bahai faith probably make him extra-sensitive to issues of profiling and discrimination, too.

      That he was being a self-righteous asshole is just another indication that he's not a criminal and is instead an intellectual who was expecting an argument or debate - instead, he got some muscle-bound cop who thought insolence and disobedience had to be met by force.

      So congratulations, Campus Cops - you found the least dangerous, most-likely-to-sue-over-civil-rights student in the library and tasered him in front of a crowd with cameras. Great job.
  • by m0nkyman (7101) on Tuesday November 21 2006, @12:48AM (#16925806) Homepage Journal
    Nice to see that the introduction of street corner cameras is being matched by our ability to watch them.
  • police POV (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2006, @01:38AM (#16926264)
    As a police officer, I have two things to say about this:

    1) This kid sounds like an ass and I'm certain that there will be more than enough "He got what he deserved posts." I might even agree in the moral sense, but not in the ethical or legal sense, because....

    2) This cop should never work in law enforcement again. This is inappropriate use of force by any professional standard. One post is not nearly enough to recount the things he did incorrectly, but I'll hit the high points;

    General rules for any controlled encounter (one where you aren't in danger from the get go) include finding out what the issue is, telling the subject what he/she needs to do, and explaining what will happen if they do not. There is almost never a need to place your hands on anyone for any reason until you are ready to take them into custody unless you are suddenly attacked. This "officer" is grossly incompetent. Understand we deal with aggressive people that posture by yelling and swearing at us all the time - this should not disrupt the officer on bit. Keep. Your. Cool. So, screaming/swearing or not, this encounter should have been over with three sentences from the officer.

    A) "Sir, per university rules and regs, I need you to show me your valid student ID or leave the library."
    B) "I need to to show me your valid student ID or leave the library right now, or I'll have to take you into custody for trespassing and disturbing the peace."
    C) "Sir, I am placing you under arrest." Then Mirandize him and be done with it. If he does anything but exactly what you tell him ("Sir, place your hands behind your back.") then....

    Now and only now, if he/she resists (NOT if he simply fails to cooperate i.e. passive resistence), you may use force sufficient to subdue him to the point of having him cease to be a danger to the officer or bystanders. That's pretty simple stuff, folks. Basically, never be the first to use force, but when you do - do it quickly and overwhelmingly then STOP when he's restrained. You are a trained professional who owns the situation and NOT a street brawler.

    From what I can tell, he never told the subject he was under arrest until after at least five taserings, some of which occurred while he was in cuffs and all but the first while he was on the ground unable to stand under his own power. This "officer" grabbed the guy's arm while he was leaving. Bad move, even if it seems like a little thing. Physical contact constitutes use of force, and any trained officer knows this is a big line to cross. I don't care if he didn't leave immediately - in that case place him calmly in custody early on and be done with it, no argument needed. You're the cop; you NEVER need to be in an argument. You aren't asking him what he wants to do, you're telling him. Never ever let a subject think they are in control. Arguing tells the subject they have some power.

    What he did is inexcusable. If this power-tripping bully didn't have a badge what would you think of somebody tasering a defenseless person on the ground FIVE TIMES some while he was handcuffed and yelling at him to "get up." A badge doesn't free you from responsibility, it adds to to it exponentially.

    This sadistic SOB gives all true professional LEOs a bad name and is part of the reason so many distrust cops. I've had training on most of the common less-than-lethal systems (lawyers don't let us call them non-lethal) including tasers, stun guns, pepper spray, rubber bullets and even conducted some training on the same. Unless this guy was issued a system with no training, he knows damn well the individual won't be getting up immediately after one tasing, let alone five. Frankly, I hope this guy answers for assault charges.

    To summarize, to non-cops this might appear to be a case of overreacting during a tense moment with a belligerent person. To most professionals, this is about as vanilla an arrest as there is where the cop did basically everything wrong. So wrong, in fact, I intend to use these videos as a training aid.

    This was so absurd that I actually laughed when the guy threatened to to taser the bystander who asked for his name and badge number. It's almost like he was trying to get fired and sued.
  • by ET_Fleshy (829048) <lespea@@@gmail...com> on Tuesday November 21 2006, @01:57AM (#16926456)
    Haven't heard anybody mention it yet, but the kid was handcuffed when they were shocking him. That, according to multiple claim-to-know people, is against pretty much every district's / precinct's rules.

    Also, the guy was in the process of leaving when the officer(s?) grabbed his arm, that's why he shouts out "let go of me." Now I agree that the guy probably shouldn't have been such an asshole when he was asked to leave the first time, which provoked the staff to call the "cops," but he definitely didn't deserve any of this.

    Also, "this is your patriot act!" --> wtf???
  • Again and again, the police apologists come out in droves saying "Oh, but you don't know how HARD it is being a cop!" and "The guy was definitely asking for it!" I'm just going to say what I said last time this came up (original post: http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=192848&cid =15830849 [slashdot.org]) Full text:

    The perfect reply to this argument (which comes up every time someone mentions that most cops are assholes) is this: a McDonald's employee has more accountability than a cop does. As a 16 year old burger-flipper, if a customer acts like a complete asshole--even going so far as to yelling and cussing you out--you are NOT allowed to verbally abuse the customer in return in any way, shape or form. At most you can ask him/her to leave the building, that's it.

    Years ago, I worked at McDonald's for four months and a very good friend of mine was punched in the face. Through a plate glass window. A woman tried to order at the pickup window, was told she needed to drive around again, so she punched through the drive-through window, hitting my friend in the face. If she (my friend) had hit her back, there's not a doubt in my mind that she would have lost her job. Instead, she walked away calmly and called her supervisor and the police.

    Now, I'm not implying that the police shouldn't use force when necessary. I'm also not denying that they're human too, that it's a nasty, dirty job and I'm sure it's really rough on them. But you know what? Working at McDonald's is in many was rougher (if you doubt this, I could tell you some more horror stories... absolutely the worst 4 months of my life, period.), and yet their workers are held to a much higher standard than the police. Why is that? Why do so many of us make allowances for the police to exercise HUGE leaps of personal discretion, to bend the law whenever it suits them? It's a tough job, but they chose it and we shouldn't let them bend the rules (or ignore them) whenever they feel like it. I saw a TON of asshole customers at McDonalds, yet I didn't say a foul word to any of them. I didn't spit in their food either (no one did--they would've been fired on the spot.) I did my job as professionally as I could, regardless of how shitty I was treated.

    And I was a fucking fry cook!

    Please please please please PLEASE tell me we can hold our police officers up to the same standards as our burger flippers.
  • from the latims (Score:5, Informative)

    by mtenhagen (450608) on Tuesday November 21 2006, @04:06AM (#16927586) Homepage
    he UCLA police officer videotaped last week using a Taser gun on a student also shot a homeless man at a campus study hall room three years ago and was earlier recommended for dismissal in connection with an alleged assault on fraternity row, authorities said.

    UCLA police confirmed late Monday that the officer who fired the Taser gun was Terrence Duren, who has served in the university's Police Department for 18 years.

    Duren, who was named officer of the year in 2001, also has been involved in several controversial incidents on campus.

    In an interview with The Times on Monday night, Duren, 43, defended his record as a campus police officer and urged people to withhold judgment until the review of his Taser use is completed.

    "I patrol this area the same way I would want someone to patrol the neighborhoods where I live," he said. "People make allegations against cops all the time. Saying one thing and proving it are two different things."

    While he would not directly talk about why he used the Taser on the student, he said a videotape of any arrest doesn't necessarily tell the whole story.

    "If someone is resisting, sometimes it's not going to look pretty taking someone into custody," he said. "If you have to use some force, it's not going to look pretty. That's the nature of this job."

    A student's cellphone video of the incident has been broadcast around the world and focused much criticism on the officer.

    But Duren -- who was back on duty at the UCLA campus Monday night -- said he can roll with these punches and wants to explain himself to students critical of his actions.

    "In this line of business, you have to have a thick skin," he added. "I am proud of my service as a cop."

    The incident occurred about 11 p.m. Nov. 14 in a library filled with students studying for midterm examinations.

    Senior Mostafa Tabatabainejad, 23, was asked by Duren and other university police officers for his ID as part of a routine nightly procedure to make sure that everyone using the library after 11 p.m. is a student or otherwise authorized to be there.

    Authorities said Tabatabainejad refused repeated requests to provide identification or to leave. The officers decided to use the Taser to incapacitate Tabatabainejad after he went limp while they were escorting him out and after he urged other library patrons to join his resistance, according to the university's account.

    The video shows portions of the incident, in which Tabatabainejad can be heard screaming in pain when the Taser shocks are administered.

    The tape, which has been broadcast on the YouTube website and TV newscasts, prompted widespread criticism both on campus and from outsiders. On Friday, more than 200 students held a march to the police station, while acting Chancellor Norman Abrams tried to quell the critics by announcing an independent investigation of the Taser use. Abrams said UCLA had received numerous e-mails and calls from concerned alumni and parents.

    Tabatabainejad's attorney, Stephen Yagman, said his client was shocked five times with the Taser after he refused to show his ID because he thought he was being singled out for his Middle Eastern appearance. Tabatabainejad is of Iranian descent but is a U.S. citizen by birth and a resident of Los Angeles.

    Duren said Monday that he joined the UCLA police force after being fired from the Long Beach Police Department in the late 1980s. He said he was a probationary officer at the time and was let go because of poor report-writing skills and geographical knowledge.

    In May 1990, he was accused of using his nightstick to choke someone who was hanging out on a Saturday in front of a UCLA fraternity. Kente S. Scott alleged that Duren confronted him while he was walking on the street outside the Theta Xi fraternity house.

    Scott sued the university, and according to court records, UCLA officials moved to have Duren dismissed from the police force. But after an independent administrative hearing, officials ove
  • Ridiculous (Score:5, Informative)

    by Mad-cat (134809) on Tuesday November 21 2006, @04:29AM (#16927752) Homepage
    *disclaimer: I haven't seen the video due to restricted net access*
    It's this sort of crap that's going to get a very useful and life-saving tool taken away from cops who use it right.

    There's no reason to deploy a taser on someone who is ALREADY ON THE GROUND AND NO LONGER FIGHTING!

    I have used my taser as a police officer twice. The first time, the wires broke on contact and I had to chase him. The second time, the guy fell to the ground and became verbally and physically compliant.

    Tasers cannot be used as FREAKING CATTLE PRODS! They're a sophisticated, useful tool that is meant to incapacitate a VIOLENT criminal in order to protect *both* the officer and the offender from serious bodily injury. When deployed in a sensible, responsible fashion, tasers save lives. When used 3 to 5 times on a compliant subject on the ground, they don't help.

    In Florida (where I am a sworn law enforcement officer), most agencies are not allowed to use a taser unless a subject is actively resisting arrest (i.e. fighting and/or running away). A large powerful agency nearby was using them on everyone for passive resistance (i.e. "I'm Ofc. Jones, who are you?" "Screw you pig!" *taser*)
    • Re:Say it's a fake (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Doomstalk (629173) on Tuesday November 21 2006, @12:49AM (#16925810)
      A) You don't need "beyond reasonable doubt" in a civil suit. B) There were a couple dozen witnesses on the scene, most of whom appeared angry enough to testify in court. C) You get clear views of several of the officers' faces. D) The officers' voices can probably be identified.

      On a side note, it'll be interesting to see how the officers justify their refusal to give their badge numbers (which was reportedly followed up with a threat to the person who asked). It makes it appear that they knew what they did was an excessive use of force, and were trying to hide their identities. That will look EXTREMELY bad to a judge and/or jury.
    • by DwarfGoanna (447841) on Tuesday November 21 2006, @12:50AM (#16925822)
      Say what you want about this kid's motives or lack of discretion, but the thing that struck me while watching this was that nonviolent protest (poorly represented or not) is truly dead in America. The widespread and almost casual use of "non-lethals" in these situations clearly goes beyond their intended purpose. Well...ostensibly intended, anyway.
      • by raju1kabir (251972) on Tuesday November 21 2006, @01:03AM (#16925954) Homepage
        The widespread and almost casual use of "non-lethals" in these situations clearly goes beyond their intended purpose.

        Nonlethals have just become a substitute for good police work.

        The number one test of a good officer is how well he (or she) can solve a problem without resorting to the use of force. If he can look someone in the eye, figure out what is going through that person's head, and assert the authority or voice the reasoning necessary to get compliance with a lawful request, he has done his job properly. Resorting to force to compel behavior is already a kind of failure. Of course there are some people out there who are just hell-bent on harming others - that's why the option of force exists - but clearly that's not what Tabatabainejad was about.

        And resorting to force to compel behavior when the person in question is not being violent and is causing no harm to anyone, well, that's beyond failure as an officer, that's failure as a human being.

        The officers who did this are a far greater threat to safety on the UCLA campus than that student would ever be. I do hope the university administration recognizes this and responds accordingly. If they do not, then we must seriously question the administration's commitment to protecting their students.

    • by tempest69 (572798) on Tuesday November 21 2006, @12:54AM (#16925852) Journal
      Sure the kid got some attention, and may have been a bit of a jerk in the process. I could care less. The problem lies with the fact that with four officers around, and a non-violent suspect of a non-violent offense decided that tazering the guy would be the appropriate measure. One officer could have easily placed the "suspect" under arrest with simple handcuffs without a wrestling match, as the "suspect" was simply going limp. But in their wisdom they decided that getting him to comply via shock was the correct procedure.

      Four Officers... one kid come on.. They could have talked this kid into the handcuffs, while he was a jerk he wasnt exactly a threat.

      Sorry the police are here to serve and protect, their actions are the actions of thugs who enjoy weilding power. So while I might not be deeply sorry for the kid, I am deeply ashamed of the actions of the law enforcement officials.

      Storm

    • by Daniel Dvorkin (106857) * on Tuesday November 21 2006, @12:57AM (#16925888) Homepage Journal
      I will say about this what I said about Rodney King: there is nothing that could have happened before the camera started rolling that could justify what those cops did. I don't care if this guy was Hannibal Lecter; once a suspect is incapacitated, further use of this kind of force is torture, not restraint.

      Now there will no doubt be a flood of whining along the lines of, "Oh cops have such a tough job, and they deal with scumbags all day, and you just don't understaaaand!" Whatever. About, oh, fifteen years ago it was my job to render medical care to a group of people who had quite actively been trying to kill me a little while before, and who would have kept trying if they'd had the chance. And I did it, no tasers or billy clubs or attack dogs or waterboarding required. Which is why, whether it's happening halfway around the world at Abu Ghraib or right here at home in America, I have no trouble saying: fuck this shit. The people who do such things to prisoners aren't cops, or soldiers, or any kind of public servant. They're criminals, and because of their abuse of power, should be treated even more harshly than we treat serial killers, pedophiles, and other such scum.
    • by spasm (79260) on Tuesday November 21 2006, @01:48AM (#16926360) Homepage
      Regardless of whether the cops were responding appropriately by tasering him or not (and, as you point out, we're missing the first half of the interaction), the fact the cops refused to provide names and badge numbers to onlookers on request tells you either a) the cops believed they were doing something wrong; or b) the cops believed they did not need to be accountable. Either of those is a huge problem, independent of the justifiability of the initial tasering.
    • Re:old news (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Surt (22457) on Tuesday November 21 2006, @01:11AM (#16926046) Homepage Journal
      Much like Kuroshin before it, the sign of the end for Digg is when they start begging slashdot's community to come over for fresher news.

      Slashdot is a discussion forum. The power here is not timeliness, it's the audience.
            • Re:Iranian Bigot (Score:5, Insightful)

              by dam.capsule.org (183256) on Tuesday November 21 2006, @03:29AM (#16927314) Homepage
              Wow... Every time someone mentions here something about ID cards, everybody is raising the Holly Privacy Bible. Today, A guy which has done nothing but wanting to keep his privacy is beaten by the police and you say it's a good thing ?

              Terrorism is, you know, about, uh, terror I think. It seems its working with you. By saying you are happy that this guy got tasered, you are entering their game. You acknowledge that you are afraid of them. And beside, now they can tell: "See, Americans are not respecting the rights they are promoting".

        • by pakar (813627) on Tuesday November 21 2006, @04:35AM (#16927808)
          Well, after getting stunned do you really think you got good control of your legs? If they wanted they could have just carried him out of the building without having to zap him even once, but what's the fun in that.
    • by jjohnson (62583) on Tuesday November 21 2006, @01:20AM (#16926126) Homepage
      To be in the library you're required to present student ID on request by staff. He said he didn't have his on him. He refused to leave when staff told him to, so they called campus security, who told him to leave. He still refused, and the police were summoned.

      According to other articles, at the time the video starts, he'd stood up and starting walking towards the door. One of the cops grabbed his arm to escort him, he yanked his arm away and yelled "don't touch me!" Whether or not he then passively resisted leaving by going limp, or was simply thrown down and tasered, depends on who you ask.
    • by creysoft (856713) on Tuesday November 21 2006, @01:25AM (#16926158)
      I dunno. Maybe arrest him, bring him to the station, charge him with disorderly conduct, and tell him that if he causes trouble like that again, he's gonna spend a few days in jail? I know, it's a little bit "out there," but I really think this strategy could work.
        • by creysoft (856713) on Tuesday November 21 2006, @02:22AM (#16926692)
          I agree with you that the guy was most likely being a jackass, and should have been forcefully removed by the premises. I was just pointing out, as you have, that there are far more civilized ways to go about it.

          A lot of people are making the point that, "He was just begging for an ass kicking." Quite possibly true. However, it is not law enforcement's role to provide him one. The only, and I mean _ONLY_ time law enforcement is justified in physically attacking (as opposed to restraining) someone is when they pose a danger to themselves or those around them. Then they are to use the minimum amount of force necessary to subdue and restrain the person. Tasers are not tools of expediency.