UCLA student tasered

[tycho102]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

You better think twice about being a cop, then. They routinely have to deal with the scum of society. Why do you think they get such violent attitudes?

After a few years of arguing with junkies, punks, and drunks, you get pretty fed up. Wait till you "easily (and less painfully) physically subdue" some wiseass and he gets an elbow loose and knocks some of your teeth out.

You're not getting paid to be nice. People should show some respect to the law and its enforcers. Or they could get tasered

Pretty much spot on, mate. Cops are so poorly paid that the ones one who will take the job are the ones who enjoy the power (just like a politician). Plus the rules of engagement put the police in far more danger than the perp, and our society has virutally no personal responsibility requirements, the job is horrible. I have imagined myself as a police officer, and I just absolutely could not justify that job to myself. Not with our current judicial system.

I generally refer to it as the Rodney King collorary. If you're high on PCP and cocaine, doing 100mph down the freeway, refuse to lie down when you have finally been pulled over, and take a swing at an officer...blame racial prejudice.



But I mean, come on. This is a California university -- the epitome of personal responsibility. There can be absolutely no doubt this attack was racially motivated, and the entire police force should be fired.

[sonar732]

To make it even better, some of the Youtube captions state he's mentally ill now.

[VON_CAPO]

Originally Posted by sonar732

From the local NBC news affiliat.

http://www.nbc4.tv/news/10325914/detail.html

From this link:
"" Officers were escorting Tabatabainejad out of the computer lab when the trouble started, according to the Daily Bruin. One of the officers placed a hand on one of his arms, to which the student objected.As a second officer approached, he repeatedly yelled "get off of me," the newspaper reported. ""

As I said too, those bumpkins put a finger on him.
A logical reaction, any person with a high self-esteem would refuse or resist to be touched by those.
But, anyway, the bumpkins are trained to handle scum, and they logically handle anybody like scum.
Wrong training for to work at the university.

It is natural for them to be insolent (to touch without consent), because their are wrapped in "authority".

[Takeda Shingen]

As the moderator responsible for locking the thread in question, I will gladly verify what Von Capo has said: The 'Dark Ages' thread was locked due to irresponsible behavior on both sides of the issue. I had posted several warnings, and was ignored. Its locking was in no way a referendum on Von's ideas or opinions. Such characterization is both inaccurate and insulting to both Von Capo and myself.

Carry on.

[StdDev]

When did this become a "racial profiling" issue?

Von_Capo.. you remarked that "Americans are trained to obey the laws" or something to that effect.. I dont believe that this is at issue in this incident.. many Americans are brought up with the "challenge Authority" mind set.. civil disobedience etc..
What most Americans ARE capable of (learn early in life) is : pick your battles!
When a guy the size of a diesel truck asks you to do something.. for christs sake dont mouth off to him.. particularly if the guy is wearing a police uniform!
Yes.. the police acted "unprofessionally", but guess who got the sh*ty end of the stick on this deal.
The police were certainly within their rights (actually it was their duty) to ask the student to leave. The police may or may not have had reason to attempt escorting the student out of the library by the arm.
Now imagine how this might have transpired if the student ,instead of screaming and making a huge issue of this, had said to the officer "i'm sorry.. I left my I.D. in my car.. let me go get it and come back".. or something along these lines... anything that was NOT disrespectfull. I can guarantee that NONE of this would have happened!

As far as I can see it, the student is AT LEAST as responsible for the incident as the police are.

[sonar732]

Originally Posted by VON_CAPO

From this link:
"" Officers were escorting Tabatabainejad out of the computer lab when the trouble started, according to the Daily Bruin. One of the officers placed a hand on one of his arms, to which the student objected.As a second officer approached, he repeatedly yelled "get off of me," the newspaper reported. ""

As I said too, those bumpkings put a finger on him.
A logical reaction, any person with a high self-esteem would refuse or resist to be touched by those.
But, anyway, the bumpkins are trained to handle scum, and they logically handle anybody like scum.
Wrong training for to work at the university.

It is natural for them to be insolent (to touch without consent), because their are wrapped in "authority".

So, by this you are advocating resisting arrest?

EDIT: Combine your statement with this..Clear demonstration of legal torture, at many parts of the civilizated world these abusers would be lynched by the people at once.

Makes me worried if you ever get caught breaking the law as you'll encourage those around you to lynch your arresting officers and claim they don't have the right to arrest or escort you out of the building if you refuse to leave...

Looks around for the backlash.

[August]

So the officer touched him. Big deal. That does not justify resisting an officer in the performance of his duty.

[sonar732]

Originally Posted by VON_CAPO

That thread was locked not because of my beliefs, but yours.
Ask to the Big Chief about that.

You are incorrect in this assertation. He clearly stated that all parties are responsible.

So, with that in mind, I take out my incorrect quote.

[Onkel Neal]

This could have all been easily avoided, and should have been.

Campus security: "Sir, do you have your college ID?"
Guy: "No, not with me."
Campus security: "We'll have to ask you to leave."
Guy: "Ok, I understand, have a good evening, officer."

Total no-brainer.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by HunterICX

Konalov:

Mmm...dont forget the spanish police are different
you have the Local ones ''Policia Local''
and the ''Guardia Civil'' also known as Dictator Franco private army
the guardia Civil on the other hand are not the ones you should mess with. If you messing around and they stop in front of you...you better pray.

for a nice example the Madrid Bank robber , wich took hostiges
he demanded a motorcycle to escape which he got (Bad choise I would choose a Tank)
the reason why is shown here:

http://rob.com/matt/misc_videos/Car_vids/spainbank.wmv

haha, I just got to see that. That was great!

[Iceman]

The problem with things...videos like this...we usually never see the whole thing from start to finish ..we only see it from the parts where things have heated up to the point where the intrest of others is captured and the cameras start rolling....with that said...

I think it is a good training video to show to other police officers to teach them how to and not to deal with situations...in this situation..if tazing the individual twice did not get him to comply and he was not "Violent"...then hog tieing and dragging his azz out quick as possible would have been the smart thing to do...if violence was ensuing to the point of civilians being endanged then clubs or weapons are what "We" as citizens grant our officers the ability to use.

I don't want some dude freaking out in a library or public place causing such a scene or trying to incite others as it appeared late in the vid to riot against the police.If my kids were in that school and the dude was doing that I "Expect" the police to handle the situation...if it is my son doing that...then I have taught him that, that is what you can expect to get....

Don't break the law....period.

Whole thing would have been different if the guy would have been discoverd to have a pipe bomb strapped to his chest...cops would have been heros...or maybe not...maybe they would have set it off with all that tazing..lol doh!

[sonar732]

Iceman...he was already handcuffed and went limp. Then, when the people started noticing him screaming at the officers before he was tazed...the show started.

[VON_CAPO]

Originally Posted by StdDev

Von_Capo.. you remarked that "Americans are trained to obey the laws" or something to that effect.. I dont believe that this is at issue in this incident.. many Americans are brought up with the "challenge Authority" mind set.. civil disobedience etc..What most Americans ARE capable of (learn early in life) is : pick your battles!

It is a personal commentary based in my (in situ) observations of different populations.

Also it was addressed to some american members of this forum and how they make reference at their laws and enforcers.
It looks like they do not realize that enforcers are just theirs neighbors wrapped with power to make comply rules, and not the "untouchables". They are so clean or dirty as anyone.

Enforcers are necessary to maintain order in society, but as wild dogs, the leash must be keep it short and tight on them.
Otherwise we get undesirable events.

Originally Posted by StdDev

When a guy the size of a diesel truck asks you to do something.. for christs sake dont mouth off to him.. particularly if the guy is wearing a police uniform!

Here I have two answers:
1- Under american jurisdiction (the case of this thread): Yes, I agree, it is better to keep the voice low and calmed because of electrocutions, pepper spray and beatings; and of course privation of your liberties to roam freely for a a time (there is exceptions, but deputies usually choose violence).
To complain is dangerous.
2- Others jurisdictions: It depends where and who.
It can be from a police trying to calm you down and to talk (because the law does not authorize him to use force if there is not an imminent and physical threat), to a bullet in the brain.

I am wondering: ""Are the enforcers policing by consent or policing by compliance???""
I mean, does people comply because they recognize the authority; or because of fear to brutal methods authorizated by law?? :hmm::hmm::hmm:


About electroshocks:

From the link: ---> http://web.amnesty.org/pages/ttt4-article_13-eng

"Trading in the tools used to torture"

""" The school bus journey on 3 October 2002 started as normal for Chiquita Hammond, a 15-year-old schoolgirl in Miramar, Florida.
However, during the journey the driver stopped the bus and flagged down three police officers with a complaint that the students were being unruly.
Chiquita Hammond stepped off the bus.
According to the police, the teenager became verbally abusive.
When she started walking away, one of the officers grabbed the girl by the wrist and attempted to handcuff her.
Chiquita Hammond allegedly responded by knocking his glasses off.
She was then wrestled to the ground while the police officer tried to handcuff her.
Another officer sprayed her in the face with pepper spray, which the police said did not appear to have an effect.
At this point a third officer pulled out his M-26 Taser gun and fired it at Chiquita’s back, delivering a 50,000-volt shock.

The use of such a painful "less than lethal" weapon in this case constitutes excessive and disproportionate use of force."""

Police electrical baton with spikes, exhibited at the China Police 2002 exhibition in Beijing, June 2002.
Less sophisticated than Tasers, but the same purpose.

[VON_CAPO]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

This could have all been easily avoided, and should have been.

Campus security: "Sir, do you have your college ID?"
Guy: "No, not with me."
Campus security: "We'll have to ask you to leave."
Guy: "Ok, I understand, have a good evening, officer."

Total no-brainer.

[August]

Originally Posted by VON_CAPO

I am wondering: ""Are the enforcers policing by consent or policing by compliance???""
I mean, does people comply because they recognize the authority; or because of fear to brutal methods authorizated by law?? :hmm::hmm::hmm:

Both. Looking for one single answer is kinda stupid. Some people comply because they recognize and respect authority, others because they fear the threat of retaliation for non-compliance.