Tasermania update: UCLA officer identified

posted at 9:27 am on November 21, 2006 by Allahpundit

Three new twists via the L.A. Times about the UCPD cop in the center of the maelstrom:

1. He was named officer of the year in 2001.

2. He’s been the subject of excessive-force complaints before, including once in 2003 when he shot a homeless man during a struggle in one of the dorms and again in 1990 when UCLA fired him for having allegedly choked a student with his nightstick. An independent administrative body later reinstated him and reduced his punishment to a 90-day suspension.

3. He has … absolute moral authority. (Well, almost — he’s also a former Marine.)

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Wait, ap, I thought soldiers only had absolute Moral authority when either a)they’re dead and their parents are libs or b)they’re flaming libs like John ‘dumber than a box of rubber dogcrap’ Kerry. I’m getting confused. Has anyone investigated this kid? Maybe he spend a fun summer at an Al Quada youth camp? They sure taught him media manipulation. Of course, our media loves playing dumb to the right kind of story.

austinnelly on November 21, 2006 at 9:33 AM

Hard to say one way or the other on this guy… It is UCLA we’re talking about so excessive force complaints probably follow each arrest.

On the other hand, he exercised poor judgement in using a Taser on the kid multiple times (particularly after other officers arrived, since he had manpower enough at that point to hogtie and carry the kid out.)

RustMouse on November 21, 2006 at 9:38 AM

He’s been a police officer for 18 years. Using the taser for pain compliance is safer than hogtieing an arrestee and carrying him out.

EF on November 21, 2006 at 10:07 AM

You know, dealing with these liberal kids all day long must get a little tiring. I bet some of these officers relish the chance to use a taser on some of these numbnuts. Not justifying, just sayin’

JasonG on November 21, 2006 at 10:08 AM

I find myself wishing he was the officer that stopped Cynthia McKinney. Is that wrong of me?

Benaiah on November 21, 2006 at 10:16 AM

If the other student and the homeless guy were of Middle Eastern descent, this guy’s toast.

The other officers: Kevin Kilgore, Andrew Ikeda, and Ricardo Bolanos. Sounds like a regular Rainbow Coalition (of racists).

Jim Treacher on November 21, 2006 at 10:26 AM

If tasering someone, which has no longterm affects, provokes the same negative reaction as if the officer shot the person; can we go back to shooting people now?

lorien1973 on November 21, 2006 at 10:28 AM

Sounds like a shooting wouldve been less hassle, and more appropriate?? anybody… Bueller…

Viper1 on November 21, 2006 at 10:33 AM

Jason,
They are not liberal kids. They are paying adults. Adults that don’t like the service they are receiving.
Viper1,
Are you saying we should shoot All of our college attending citizens that fail to produce an ID after ten a clock in their respective library’s? I think you are.

Rustyw on November 21, 2006 at 11:06 AM

lorien1973,
Is that how you want to be treated next time an officer thinks you aren’t doing what he wants?

Rustyw on November 21, 2006 at 11:07 AM

Even when they are in the wrong, I do what the officer wants. It’s called respecting authority. My parents taught me how.

They said, “Leave.”

He should have said, “That sucks, but ok.”

And they are spoiled liberal brats. Wonder what “resisters” in Singapore get? Hint: Not a taZer.

y2church on November 21, 2006 at 11:13 AM

Well,for my money Rusty, public humiliation in the stocks would be OK for the first offence.

bbz123 on November 21, 2006 at 11:27 AM

Police are not judge and jury and they are not above the law. The perp was handcuffed(subdued). They could have hogtied him and stapped him to a stretcher, as there were plenty of officers to help carry. The police were not defending themselves. When there is a less violent solution it is excessive force. I feel it was a set-up but that doesnt justify officer actions. Police risk their lives for meager pay, by far most are honest, decent and law abiding. This is a situation like Pvt Lynndie England at Abu, one bad apple doesnt mean the rest are. Anyway IMHO I think the taxpayers will fit the bill for this one, for the officer does have a history.

infidel on November 21, 2006 at 11:35 AM

lorien1973,
Is that how you want to be treated next time an officer thinks you aren’t doing what he wants?

Rustyw on November 21, 2006 at 11:07 AM

The next time I start shouting “racism” and “profiling” and “everybody join the resistance!” and “come see the violence inherent in the system!” because I forgot my library card… yes, please shoot me.

Lehosh on November 21, 2006 at 11:37 AM

They are not liberal kids. They are paying adults. Adults that don’t like the service they are receiving.

Well gee, I don’t think I’d like the service I’d receive if I were ever to be arrested, too. Tell me, why is that such a head-scratcher? But he agreed to abide by the university’s policies when he signed up to be a student…he can’t just pick and choose what rules he wants to follow without any of the consequences for breaking them. And using the ‘walks like a duck’ criteria, he’s a kid regardless of his age because he acted like a moron kid.

Are you saying we should shoot All of our college attending citizens that fail to produce an ID after ten a clock in their respective library’s? I think you are.

Rustyw on November 21, 2006 at 11:06 AM

Ugh…once again, he didn’t get tasered for not showing his ID…he got tasered because he, and he alone, escalated the situation from him not showing his ID through him failing to obey a lawful order to leave the premises into him resisting arrest. There are three levels of offense here, and the authorities responded appropriately for each level. Do you catch the one word that appears in all those phrases? Him. He did it. He’s responsible.

James on November 21, 2006 at 11:40 AM

Police are not judge and jury and they are not above the law. The perp was handcuffed(subdued).

And either are you of the police.

They could have hogtied him and stapped him to a stretcher, as there were plenty of officers to help carry. The police were not defending themselves.

They were employing pain to gain compliance which is entirely legal. Do you have any idea how dangerous it is to hogtie someone? Most people would accept some pain over being totally restrained and having an increased risk of death.

EF on November 21, 2006 at 11:41 AM

Are you saying we should shoot All of our college attending citizens that fail to produce an ID after ten a clock

Rusty, once again you twist and slant the truth. Why do you do that? Is it the only way you feel you can possibly argue a point?

Again – as has already been pointed out many times – the loser was not stunned for failing to produce his ID. He was zapped for failing to obey the commands of a police officer and throwing a temper tantrum much like a little spoiled child. Nobody here has suggested he be shot for failing to produce an ID.

Do you have any integrity at all? No need to answer that. We already know the answer.

Gregor on November 21, 2006 at 11:43 AM

I think everyone who resists arrest should be zapped. I think it should be a law and officers who don’t zap those resisting arrest should be fired.

n2sooners on November 21, 2006 at 11:44 AM

lorien1973,
Is that how you want to be treated next time an officer thinks you aren’t doing what he wants?

I know you tried hard to miss my point and congratulations on doing so. ;)

lorien1973 on November 21, 2006 at 11:48 AM

I dont think I could stand after bein hit four times. People can die from one stun. It would seem prisoners at gitmo have more rights. Just sayin there must be some alternatives, more training might be an option. But I wonder if Ghandi had a peacefull sit-in and wouldnt leave is a taser now the preferred method? Before, during or after arrest would you endorse the taser?

infidel on November 21, 2006 at 11:48 AM

He’s not being tazered. It is set for stun which is a lower voltage and used for pain compliance. You keep arguing apples to oranges. Also, the deaths attributed to taser is b.s. Those people die from drug OD or are mentally ill and will not stop fighting which can cause lethal metabolic changes.

EF on November 21, 2006 at 11:53 AM

And either are you of the police.
EF on November 21, 2006 at 11:41 AM

Great point. Point taken.

infidel on November 21, 2006 at 11:54 AM

EF on November 21, 2006 at 11:53 AM

I wonder what a taser on stun does to ppl with heart conditions.

infidel on November 21, 2006 at 11:56 AM

uh oh! the trolls are here trying to recreate the tazer as a pair of rusty nails hooked up to a gas generator.

how can you countenance yourselves, oh conservative friends? is there no depth of “torture” you will not abide?

jummy on November 21, 2006 at 11:59 AM

I wonder what a taser on stun does to ppl with heart conditions.

Infidel – Is it your belief that cops should now be required to do a physical or get the okay from an out of control person before using a stun gun, just to make sure they don’t hurt the poor baby? Maybe they should ask the offender to sign a waiver first?

Can we please be realistic?

Gregor on November 21, 2006 at 12:00 PM

I wonder what a taser on stun does to ppl with heart conditions.

holy crap, did you notice as i did that the taser “victim” screeched out that he had “a medical condition” among his other canned lines?

its almost like its part of the radical script around tasers.

jummy on November 21, 2006 at 12:03 PM

All I am trying to say is he was under arrest and handcuffed, then “stunned”. I believe excessive force was used. I was not there though. I just have a problem with the excessive part. If prisoners at Leavenworth disobey are you sayin we should just “stun” them into submission or possibly dead? I am just tryin to see both sides, there needs to be a protocol review. I say shoot the bastard if its warranted but that would not have been justified either in this situation.

infidel on November 21, 2006 at 12:09 PM

maybe cops should be allowed swift kicks to the nuts instead?

lorien1973 on November 21, 2006 at 12:09 PM

I wonder what a taser on stun does to ppl with heart conditions.

infidel on November 21, 2006 at 11:56 AM

Perhaps people with heart conditions should have to obey a lawful order just like the rest of us or face the consequences for behaving like a jackass.

.

GT on November 21, 2006 at 12:10 PM

If prisoners at Leavenworth disobey are you sayin we should just “stun” them into submission or possibly dead?

Definitely! No doubt about it!

Gregor on November 21, 2006 at 12:14 PM

If you are worried about your health conditions or don’t want to get zapped, then stop resisting arrest. It isn’t the officer’s fault that some people are just too stupid to follow simple instructions.

n2sooners on November 21, 2006 at 12:17 PM

by the way, the answer is basicly none. risk decreases as the target’s body mass increases. there is an inverse corelation between body mass and heart disease. in one trial, the risk was tested using pigs. a 20 pound pig required a charge 15 times greater than what is discharged from a taser in order to cause fribilation.

the “killer taser” is a myth, a red herring and, depending on to what degree the teller has looked into this and decided to tell it anyway, a lie.

jummy on November 21, 2006 at 12:17 PM

I wonder what a taser on stun does to ppl with heart conditions.

Besides causing moderate pain at the site where it is applied, nothing.

EF on November 21, 2006 at 12:20 PM

I want to know if the officers in question followed proceedure.

infidel on November 21, 2006 at 12:21 PM

tasers and the deployment of other humane, non-lethal force compliance techniques are threatening to radical progressives.

jummy on November 21, 2006 at 12:28 PM

I’d like to say this before I respond to everyone. We are now sending police to our elementary school to handle the same problems that our principals used to handle when we were kids. I want you to think about the world that you are asking for.
James,
No, he was tasered the first time as he was being escorted out for telling the officer to quite grabbing him.
The problem that I see here is extremism. I suppose when the left gets control of the police force they will shot us.
bbz123,
So what is the difference between you and the mullahs? For that mater I guess the Russians are justified in poisoning the ex spies fro not following their laws.
Infidel,
In my opinion the School not the police are ultimately at fault here. They have a front desk. How about a show you’re ID before you enter policy instead of doing an inspection at ten when the rules change policy? The solution is simple. If I were studying in the library at ten, I would want to finish.
Lehosh,
Should we apply the same policy to the Jesus freaks that get in you’re face at the local UC? I don’t think so. It is a University.
James,
So if you forget you’re ID and you are studying for a test, you should be removed because of a mis guided policy? How hard would it have been to confirm that he was a student? I bet he could have been verified on the local computer at the front desk. Wouldn’t that have been better than calling the police?
So are you saying that the School ids not responsible for sending in the police force to stop one of their students from studding? He wasn’t causing the disturbance the school was.
Gregor,
Stop being such a troll. All you ever do is insult people that disagree with you. This comment section is for discussion. Yes I have plenty of integrity.
n2sooners,
Humm, so you would like to live in a police state? Try China. They have the type of policy that you desire.
lorien1973,
No I think I got your point. “If tasering someone, which has no long-term affects, provokes the same negative reaction as if the officer shot the person; can we go back to shooting people now?” Yea, not hard to understand that.
EF,
Also, the deaths attributed to taser is b.s. Those people die from drug OD or are mentally ill and will not stop fighting which can cause lethal metabolic changes.
Could you back that up please? I’d appreciate it.

Rustyw on November 21, 2006 at 12:30 PM

About a year ago, I acutally read the AI and the Taser international reports and anything I could find on google, including departmental policies. I suggest you start there. I also searched for and read everything I could about hogtie and hobble restraints. Again, google is your friend.

EF on November 21, 2006 at 12:35 PM

So are you saying that the School ids not responsible for sending in the police force to stop one of their students from studding?

no, but if that was what he was doing back there, then there’s no question that he should have been ejected!

He wasn’t causing the disturbance the school was.

?!

jummy on November 21, 2006 at 12:37 PM

So, according to Rusty, actually obeying the police is equivalent to living in a police state. I guess resisting arrest is a new constitutional right. It is times like this I feel my hope for humanity slipping.

n2sooners on November 21, 2006 at 12:41 PM

ROFL! Rusty calls ME a troll. Rusty, I’ve noticed that anytime anyone says you are wrong … you claim they “insulted you” or “resorted to name calling.” In fact, you seem to think someone calling you a liberal is “name calling.”

If you feel I’m insulting you by stating that you have no integrity, so be it. Everyone here knows you lack honesty, and lack common sense. It’s not a mystery. It’s simply true. For someone like you to call ME a troll only proves you to be the joke that you are.

Gregor on November 21, 2006 at 12:42 PM

There was a *fourth*, initial offense. The university closes the library to non-students at night. This is because of problems, such as homeless, etc. They have several student monitors who walk around, nightly, checking IDs. Every student knows this, and either leaves, or has it ID.

When this joker was asked to produce his ID, he refused. The monitor asked him to leave. He refused. THAT is why the police were called. By the time the police arrived, this situation had already escalated to the point where they were to remove this man using any reasonable means.

When I learned this, I saw that this was handled appropriately and the jerk was handled too politely, if anything.

trantor on November 21, 2006 at 12:46 PM

yea, but gregor, rusty can say this…

He wasn’t causing the disturbance the school was.

…so basicly he doesn’t care what people think of him as long as he can “adjust the text” and “flip the meme”.

these are derida’s bastard babies we’re dealing with. the only answer to their challenges is to kickban them.

jummy on November 21, 2006 at 12:50 PM

Exactly Jummy. And that’s why I have no problem calling Rusty a liar. It’s what he is and I’m not about to be politically correct.

Gregor on November 21, 2006 at 1:00 PM

People complaining about the student being cuffed and not dangerous should watch this video of a cuffed person in a police car kicking out the cruisers window and escaping that happened yesterday

http://www.myfoxboston.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail?contentId=1553294&version=2&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=VSTY&pageId=1.1.1

The beautiful part is of the two average cititzens coming over to offer assistance and sit on the guy so the cop that was in the cruiser can control him.

It contrasts nicely to the liberal students in the library at UCLA that only hindered the police as they tried to deal with the student instead of condemning the student for not following school policy and yelling at the student to obey the cops and leave instead of them yelling at the cops.

garetjax on November 21, 2006 at 1:03 PM

Was he currently enrolled at ucla and did he have his ID but refuse to produce it? If so, it does smack of a cair/yagman set up. Doesn’t matter, I trust the officer will be cleared.

EF on November 21, 2006 at 1:03 PM

Sounds like a shooting wouldve been less hassle, and more appropriate?? anybody… Bueller…

Viper1 on November 21, 2006 at 10:33 AM

Viper1,
Are you saying we should shoot All of our college attending citizens that fail to produce an ID after ten a clock in their respective library’s? I think you are.

Rustyw on November 21, 2006 at 11:06 AM

Are you saying we should shoot All of our college attending citizens that fail to produce an ID after ten a clock
Rusty, once again you twist and slant the truth. Why do you do that? Is it the only way you feel you can possibly argue a point? Do you have any integrity at all? No need to answer that. We already know the answer.

Gregor on November 21, 2006 at 11:43 AM

Gregor,
Stop being such a troll. All you ever do is insult people that disagree with you. This comment section is for discussion. Yes I have plenty of integrity. Rustyw on November 21, 2006 at 12:30 PM

ROFL! Rusty calls ME a troll. Rusty, I’ve noticed that anytime anyone says you are wrong … you claim they “insulted you” or “resorted to name calling.” In fact, you seem to think someone calling you a liberal is “name calling.”

If you feel I’m insulting you by stating that you have no integrity, so be it. Everyone here knows you lack honesty, and lack common sense. It’s not a mystery. It’s simply true. For someone like you to call ME a troll only proves you to be the joke that you are.

Gregor on November 21, 2006 at 12:42 PM

infidel on November 21, 2006 at 1:06 PM

No, he was tasered the first time as he was being escorted out for telling the officer to quite grabbing him.

Which is, by any rational definition, resisting arrest. Do you honestly think he just said that and meekly complied or the infinitely more likely scenario that he coupled that statement with the potentially aggressive act of physically pulling away from the cop?

So if you forget you’re ID and you are studying for a test, you should be removed because of a mis guided policy? How hard would it have been to confirm that he was a student? I bet he could have been verified on the local computer at the front desk. Wouldn’t that have been better than calling the police?

No, I shouldn’t be removed in that case, I should remove myself. That’s the rule! How difficult is this to comprehend? The rule isn’t to be verified at the computer at the front desk, the rule is to produce your ID when asked for it by the proper authorities. Why should the people manning the front desk be required to waste their time circumventing the proper procedure? How many people would blow off carrying their ID with them if they could just take up someone else’s work time by bothering them with it?

Anyway, this whole ‘verify at the front desk’ idea is patently ridiculous. How else would he prove that he is actually the guy listed in the computer without showing his ID? Do you expect me to believe he has one wallet for his driver’s license and a totally separate wallet for his school ID, and he only occasionally carries that one on him?

James on November 21, 2006 at 1:10 PM

Exactly Jummy. And that’s why I have no problem calling Rusty a liar. It’s what he is and I’m not about to be politically correct.

the beginning of wisdome is to call things by their proper names.

i’m not even surprised by it any more. in the youtube thread, there is the repeated assertion that the officers told the students asking for badge numbers that they’d get tazed too if they didn’t drop it.

guess what? its a total fabrication, but that’s how narrow a frequency they’re broadcasting on. they’re looking to mix their fabrications in with the viewer’s memory of the video as they read the comments underneath. lying about whats in the video right underneath the video doesn’t make the lie more apparent, it causes readers to later misremember the video and the lie as parts of the same document.

jummy on November 21, 2006 at 1:15 PM

Cant we all just get along? lol

infidel on November 21, 2006 at 1:25 PM

Cant we all just get along? lol

I only get along with people who are unconcious cuz I just tazered them :)

lorien1973 on November 21, 2006 at 1:28 PM

jummy, thanks for the arisstocrat link. The mid-part of the first audio link there where the cops told him to stand up and he replied “F*** off” then the tick, tick, tick of the tazer mixed with the guy screaming came immediately after, gave me quite a chuckle.

Dusty on November 21, 2006 at 2:08 PM

During the altercation between Tabatabainejad and the officers, bystanders can be heard in the video repeatedly asking the officers to stop and requesting their names and identification numbers. The video showed one officer responding to a student by threatening that the student would “get Tased too.” At this point, the officer was still holding a Taser.

Such a threat of the use of force by a law enforcement officer in response to a request for a badge number is an “illegal assault,” Eliasberg said.

“It is absolutely illegal to threaten anyone who asks for a badge — that’s assault,” he said.
Well then should the officer be tasered? He wasn’t following the law.
Tabatabainejad was also stunned with the Taser when he was already handcuffed, said Carlos Zaragoza, a third-year English and history student who witnessed the incident.
And from a later report;
Video evidence suggested that Tabatabainejad’s wrists had already been restrained by the third time he was stunned, which eyewitness reports confirmed.
Uh, he was handcuffed. So there goes the handcuffing/hogtied is more dangerous than a taser argument.
“He wasn’t cooperative; he wouldn’t identify himself. He resisted the officers,” Young said.

Neither the video footage nor eyewitness accounts of the events confirmed that Tabatabainejad encouraged resistance, and he repeatedly told the officers he was not fighting and would leave.
Well that can’t be true, the police said so.
But that six minutes that we can watch just seems like it’s a ridiculous amount of force for someone being escorted because they forgot their BruinCard,” said Ali Ghandour, a fourth-year anthropology student.

“It certainly makes you wonder if something as small as forgetting your BruinCard can eventually lead to getting Tased several times in front of the library,” he added.

Edouard Tchertchian, a third-year mathematics student, said he was concerned that the student was not offered any other means of showing that he was a UCLA student.
Well, we don’t need any new voters. Screw them.
According to a report prepared by the Stanford Criminal Justice Center, the drive stun setting of a Taser is intended for “pain compliance” in close range.

The drive stun setting, in which police touch the device to a person’s body, has less serious medical consequences than a regular Taser stun, in which a person is shot with two metal probes that pump electrical currents through the body.

But the report found that there can be “permanent … dermatological impairments associated with the use of a Taser in (drive) stun mode.” The report also emphasized that drive stun shocks are not fatal and the long-term physical implications are not serious.
How can that be? The police said they were safe. Well safer than being shot anyway.
While Tabatabainejad was on his way to the CLICC Lab door at around 11:30 p.m., university police officers approached him, and following an apparent confrontation, he was hit with a Taser by UCPD officers at least four times.
This doesn’t fit our story. NO NO he was causing problems, refusing to leave. Get him Get him.
Protestors marched to the campus police station, filling the streets of Westwood Boulevard and the entire front lawn of the station and shouting, “Hell no, we won’t go.” The building was locked and the lights on the first floor were turned off as police inside the station put on their riot gear.
What, for just a stun. Get those cops out there with some machine guns. (but make sure their checks cleared.)
Daily Bruin has received hundreds of letters from concerned parents and community members. Some letters from parents and prospective UCLA students say after reading about the incident and watching the video footage a student captured of it, they have dropped UCLA off of their list of prospective colleges.
http://dailybruin.com/documents/2006/11/17/taserpolicy.pdf
Court documents and complaints presented during the trial of Willie Davis Frazier Jr., the homeless man whom Duren shot in 2003, outline several other allegations, some of which include altercations with students, the Daily Bruin reported.

According to one court complaint presented in the trial, Duren allegedly woke a student sleeping in the study hall in Kerckhoff in August 1993, escorted him outside, slammed him against a wall, and handcuffed and arrested him.

The complaint also stated that on the way to the police station, Duren told the student, “For a while there I thought I was going to have to ‘Rodney King’ you.”

In 2002, Duren had a verbal confrontation with another student, Kirk Zhong, which resulted in Zhong being arrested, according to an incident report.

Zhong said the confrontation began when he walked by two officers questioning a homeless man and they began yelling at him.

According to the report, Zhong took a combative stance against the officers by clenching his fists.

Zhong maintained the report was unfounded because he was carrying books, so he could not have clenched his fists.
n 2001, Duren was named Officer of the Year, an award based on an officer’s performance of duties, contribution to the department and commitment to the goals of community-oriented policing, the Daily Bruin reported in 2004.

“That’s one thing I want you to understand: I have received more congratulatory notes than negative ones as a police officer,” Duren said.

“I most definitely have had my downs, but overall I would say being a police officer has been positive,” he said. “Am I a perfect human being? No, I’m not, but overall my experience here as a police officer has been great.”

Rustyw on November 21, 2006 at 2:13 PM

And from the blog father;
As Scott Johnson observes: “The boundaries of acceptable speech on university campuses continue to contract.”
Hey just taser them. (that part is from me)

Rustyw on November 21, 2006 at 2:18 PM

Laws the law;

Meanwhile, a top U.N. official visited Sderot, which has repeatedly been barraged by Palestinian rockets:

Louise Arbour, the U.N. commissioner for human rights, got an angry reception from a few Sderot residents on Tuesday. Workers at a chicken-slaughtering plant threw stones at her vehicle and shouted curses when she came to see the result of Palestinian rocket fire firsthand.
The man who was critically wounded by the rocket Tuesday was a plant worker. Last week, rocket fire killed a woman in Sderot.

Israel “has a responsibility to defend its citizens, but has to do so only by legal means,” said Arbour, who came as the guest of Sderot’s mayor, and visited a school and met with town residents. “It has to do so in line with international law, including international humanitarian law, but it has a primary responsibility to protect people who are under its authorities.”

So it goes at the U.N. Israel has, in theory, the right (and, of course, the duty) to protect its citizens against rocket attacks. But anything it does to try to achieve that goal is a violation of “international humanitarian law.”

Rustyw on November 21, 2006 at 2:25 PM

During the altercation between Tabatabainejad and the officers, bystanders can be heard in the video repeatedly asking the officers to stop and requesting their names and identification numbers. The video showed one officer responding to a student by threatening that the student would “get Tased too.” At this point, the officer was still holding a Taser.

Such a threat of the use of force by a law enforcement officer in response to a request for a badge number is an “illegal assault,” Eliasberg said.

The students trying to stop the officers and asking for badge numbers in the middle of the altercation were interfering with official police business. The officer is under no obligation to stop in the middle of an arrest to write down his badge number for anyone. I think a verbal warning was perfectly fine. If the student were really concerned he could have waited until the altercation was over and then asked for a badge number.

n2sooners on November 21, 2006 at 2:29 PM

this…

The video showed one officer responding to a student by threatening that the student would “get Tased too.” At this point, the officer was still holding a Taser.

…is fabrication. it simply is not in the video.

jummy on November 21, 2006 at 2:42 PM

The only thing the officer did wrong is using too little force – he would have been much better off actually tasering him for real instead of dry tasering him a few times. Watch this video of a 340 pound guy getting tasered. After the juice is off he immediately stands up and does everything they say “I’m done” he says.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=lgmb8QyAFG0&search=tasered%20cops

garetjax on November 21, 2006 at 2:53 PM

n2sooners,
There is video on this. They where not interfering. Also, the officer being asked was not in the middle of an arrest. They were enforcing school policy. The arrest occurs when they get out side. Also, they violated their own taser policy. Did you read the PDF?

Jummy,
Well take that up with the school paper. They say they verified that claim.

Rustyw on November 21, 2006 at 3:04 PM

Garetjax,
So are you saying they should have shot him? They didn’t even taser the Imans at a public place. But this is OK at a University. No wonder we lost the election. I can see we won’t be winning one for a long time. Talk about extreme.
From Gateway Pundit
Omar Shahin from Phoenix was removed from the US Airways plane after he stood and recited Muslim prayer with 5 other imams on the plane before takeoff. The imams refused to leave the plane and had to be escorted off.
** ABC5 has video on the incident.

The six men were detained, questioned, given a refund for the cost of their tickets and told they could not fly on US Airways.

Rustyw on November 21, 2006 at 3:05 PM

lets run back through this…

The video showed one officer responding to a student by threatening that the student would “get Tased too.”

the incident described does not appear in the video. so the assertion is false.

i realize i’m going up against the word of a school newspaper here, but i think i’m on solid ground.

jummy on November 21, 2006 at 3:15 PM

Rusty is at it again. No Rusty, the six Imans did not fall on the ground screaming and yelling. And when “escorted off” they did not act like 2 year old children kicking and screaming.

Keep slanting. Keep on fabricating. We’ll all continue to laugh at you.

By the way …

I love the line “no wonder we lost the election.”

Now you’re pretending to be a conservative? Right.

Gregor on November 21, 2006 at 3:18 PM

Rusty,

Please reread what I wrote. Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough.

I said “The only thing the officer did wrong is using too little force – he would have been much better off actually tasering him for real instead of dry tasering him a few times.”

Nowhere did I mention shooting him with a gun.

The officer did not taser him – he “dry tasered” the student which is a much weaker / less use of force by shocking someone with the top of the taser. I am saying the officer should have actually tasered him ie with the prongs and wires which totally incapacitates the person as shown in that video with the 340 pound guy.

I don’t have a link at the moment but there are are videos on youtube of teenagers “dry tasering” themselves in sensitive areas such as the breasts/groin etc and they yelp then laugh about it. They don’t even fall down from it.

That student yelled a lot more than the young lady in the video I was refering to who was dry tasered on her breasts/buttocks etc which really gave me the impression he was acting.

garetjax on November 21, 2006 at 3:29 PM

n2sooners,
There is video on this. They where not interfering. Also, the officer being asked was not in the middle of an arrest. They were enforcing school policy. The arrest occurs when they get out side. Also, they violated their own taser policy. Did you read the PDF? [Rustyw on November 21, 2006 at 3:04 PM]

You are splitting hairs, Rustyw. The police were in the middle of an enforcement action, as you note, and the bystanders were interrupting, thereby, distracting the police from their doing their duty.

You assert they were not interfering without explanation; I say the benefit of the doubt goes to the person who is being interfered with. And it seems to me, up until the point in which the person asked for the badge number, that person was a bystander, which means, by default, the person in not part of the action. By asking for the badge number in the middle of the action, is, by definition, interfering with the normal course of the action.

Dusty on November 21, 2006 at 3:36 PM

Garetjax,
OK, I got you know. I s=agree, if you are going to use force, use it. Then there would have been only one taser blast. Good point.
Gregor,
I am not pretending to be anything. On many things I am conservative, on my things I am not. I am more of a Larry Elder type. As far as I can tell, you’re group needs guys like me or you get you’re buts stomped. So tell me, do you think it is helpful to run off a Texas oil man? We are pretty conservative. Redneck you could say.
Sure I think it is stupid to lock someone up for having a joint. I also think it is stupid to taser folks that are not a danger, but that is just me. Call me fiscaly conservative, fairly socially liberal. I don’t support gay marriage, but I don’t oppose civil unions. You don’t have to guess about me, just ask. I am not trying to hide anything.
You don’t have to take it as some great challenge to you’re manhood. So Gregor, what do you do?
Dusty,
Yes I am splitting hairs, but most of the argument against me is the law is the law. So, if that is so, they also violated the law. Let’s not forget, this is like what happened to Libby, we are here for one reason, but we will find another to arrest you.

As they say, you may beat the charge, but not the ride.

Rustyw on November 21, 2006 at 3:48 PM

Dusty,
Once when I was 18, I was traveling to San Antonio from Houston. We stopped in a small town called Brookshire. As I was purchasing my chicken, a truck driver was arguing with the manager of the chicken shack. He hadn’t received what he ordered. The argument degraded to the point that the truck driver said he no longer wanted the order. Of course he refused to pay.
We went out side and as we were walking to the car, the police showed up. The ordered him out of his 18 wheeler. He wouldn’t get out, so they climbed up there and started beating the man over the head with billy cubs. I walked up to an officer that was watching all of this and asked him if I could ask him a question. He said sure. I asked if it was legal to beat that guy up when he wasn’t even wrong in the first place.
I was thrown over a car, pushed around and hand cuffed. Three hours later they let me go. So, I disagree with you’re statement; “I say the benefit of the doubt goes to the person who is being interfered with”.

Rustyw on November 21, 2006 at 4:07 PM

Rusty says …

On many things I am conservative, on my things I am not.

Rusty, you’re about as conservative as Rosie is straight. Since you started posting on this site, I don’t believe I remember a single post that you were not on the opposite side of the argument. You’re a Grebrook clone.

Gregor on November 21, 2006 at 4:07 PM

There are many things that could have been done better by all parties involved. Obviously more debate is needed. Both Gregor and Rusty have valid points and opinions. I have agreed with both on many issues, however if I disagree that doesnt make me any more or less a conservative.

infidel on November 21, 2006 at 4:22 PM

Please discuss the arguments not just resort to insults if you disagree with someone, that is for the Dhimmis.

infidel on November 21, 2006 at 4:23 PM

Rusty, I must apologize. You made some extremely good points in the debate over “moderate Muslims” that would never have been made by a liberal.

Gregor on November 21, 2006 at 4:25 PM

I blame my liberal bigotry on Grebrook, lol.

Gregor on November 21, 2006 at 4:27 PM

Gregor,
On this one subject, you and I are opposites. Name another.
I don’t recall you and me on another thread. And No, I don’t claim to be what ever it is you are talking about.

Infidel,
Yes, that is all that I am saying. If we can’t have discourse, if we all have to tow some line, then we are done as a party. And, although I’d love to side with the libertarians, they have been taken over by the left. So where dose that leave us?

Rustyw on November 21, 2006 at 4:30 PM

Jack Welch/Tommy Franks 2008! ?

infidel on November 21, 2006 at 4:35 PM

Rustyw, you say ” … So, if that is so, they also violated the law. ….” and I presume you mean the cops. But that, so far, is only your opinion and which I should add, was also the opinion of some bystanders, particularly those who interfered by asking for the badge number of the cops there.

As you can see the cops used reasonable discretion in not just tazing those who requested the badge numbers, nor did they arrest them. They did get a warning not to interfere and that was that, even though, in my opinion, the reason and manner of the request had a lot of intimidating overtone to it. Yet those bystanders still got the badge numbers, didn’t they. As for the “law is the law”, as you remark, I read the UCPD policy that has been linked and it doesn’t seem a clear cut violation of that policy to me (and others), so discretion as well as the subjective understanding of the circumstances is the key issue here and it is not exclusively a matter of “the law is the law”.

And what’s with bringing all these other story threads into the discussion, especially that last one about Libby? They are interfering and distracting from the subject at hand.

Dusty on November 21, 2006 at 4:38 PM

You should get automatically tazer’d for enrolling in any left wing lib school like ULCA.

Pavlov proved it works with dogs, it may just work with libs.

RightWired on November 21, 2006 at 4:46 PM

gregor, the problem a troll like the one we’re talking about presents is that the claim is non-falsifiable. without something equivalent to a comintern, how do you say, “you are lying about being a conservative” without adopting a stalinist mindset?

modern progressives have overcome this by adopting a sort of hyperstalinism, where everyone, in the face of divergences wide and narrow, can be an agent provacateur or a rightwing cia false flag operation to the extent and duration that it is usefull to position oneself that way to skirt others’ risk. one can see this in the way the social justice movement responded during the jesse macbeth issue. pepperspray media was the video collective of the seattle area imc. they were highly regarded for many years and indeed up until the moment it became clear that the jesse macbeth fraud they produced was never going to fly in the face of the debunkings. suddenly, pepperspray was a rightwing false front, but never “purged” and only for as long as the hoax was popularly discussed. now pepperspray continues as the seattle imc’s media collective and i’ve even seen some intrepid progressives attack the debunkings in an attempt to rehabilitate macbeth’s representativeness.

so, remember: your nose knows.

jummy on November 21, 2006 at 4:49 PM

Well, Rustyw, I have a similar personal anecdote of when I was 21, which while I was in the midst of it, considered myself one of the aggrieved parties. I must say, though I did not ask as inappropriate, and instigating, a question as you did, and, I suspect that was why I did not get the treatment you did. In the aftermath, though, I still came to appreciate the subjectivity of the situation and from that time on, I have held by who should get the benefit of the doubt in such circumstances.

Dusty on November 21, 2006 at 5:08 PM

Dusty,

thanks for the props. honestly, all i did was cut out ambient mumbling. the theater of it is so thick, you’d think it was parody.

jummy on November 21, 2006 at 5:16 PM

?

I sure wouldn’t consider my self progressive Jummy. I am more of what you call a capitalist. It may surprise you, but we are in to making money in the oil patch. Are you a progressive?
Dusty,
This is an argument for attorneys and I don’t claim to be one. The argument the attorney is making is;
Such a threat of the use of force by a law enforcement officer in response to a request for a badge number is an “illegal assault,” Eliasberg said.
Of course it is hair splitting, but it is true, that they are required by law to provide their badge number to any concerned citizen. Why do you think they show them in the first place? Do I think someone should be arrested, no. But I do think this was absurd. If anyone should have been tasered it was those Imams standing in the isle of the plane yelling Allah Akbar.
My second response is this, which is hair splitting;
Well aside from the policy which states to maximize the safety of all individuals involved, the following; , 4C, 5, 6 he wasn’t under arrest when tasered, 7Ci, Cii.
Still, if you say a student must leave because he doesn’t have his student Id and you are to lazy to do a simple check, and you need six police to deal with a situation that could have been rectified by getting a drivers license or anything, then taser him on the way out because he ask you to let go of his arm, and then arrest him for resisting arrest .. arrest of resisting? When no one was a t danger,
Then I have to say this whole thing is hair splitting which is why I referred to Libby. Another Kafue.

Rustyw on November 21, 2006 at 5:27 PM

Gregor,
Guess this is beat to death. Yes I am sure we agree on many things. I’ll try not to be such an a** next time we cross paths. Sorry for calling you a troll the other day.

Rustyw on November 21, 2006 at 5:31 PM

I sure wouldn’t consider my self progressive Jummy.

i’m certain i wasn’t addressing you.

jummy on November 21, 2006 at 5:41 PM

Why is the name of the officer now public knowledge, while the investigation is on-going? Seems only to be a means to intimidate the man and color the investigation against him.
College libraries are magnets for creeps, which is certainly why the ID rule at that particular one is so strictly enforced. The cops never know what they’ve got when they respond, could be nothing, could be a complete whack-job with superhuman strength. The student had not cooperated when he’d been asked prior to leave, before the cops arrived, unlike most people who would have left once instructed to. No ID after 11:00, have to leave. How hard is that? Cops aren’t mind-readers. The bottom line is: The suspect is very much alive and well enough to be whining about it. Would the college have preferred that he’d been punched numerous times in the face instead?

naliaka on November 21, 2006 at 6:16 PM

Did you go to College naliaka? In my experience College libraries were magnets for A students. Almost all the Grad students had study booths there. I personally spent a lot of time there, reading obscure Geophysical publications. I was also on a two year exchange with Rice. My experiences there were the same.
Granted, that was a few years back, but I did do my graduate degree in the mid to late eighties.

Rustyw on November 21, 2006 at 7:48 PM

They are also magnets for perverts and thieves.

EF on November 21, 2006 at 8:10 PM

He was named officer of the year in 2001.

I nominate him for officer of the year for 2006.

JackM on November 21, 2006 at 10:00 PM

The John and Ken show had this topic in the works on my drive home today (they also refered to the MM site favorably, which they do often).

Apparently this tazered dude was nudged to do this by a group of activists. A student called in and said that all students get checked for ID cards, after 11 p.m., which is when this happened. This guy pretended to go limp and didn’t cooperate and was then tazered, with the lighter method of the two possible. Then all h–l broke loose and voila, in less than 24 hours there was a protest.

The officer was interviewed today – heard him speak on the radio – he calmly said that he did everything according to “past 11 p.m. procedures” and looks forward to the investigation and to talking to even the Muslim community afterward.

Interesting is this – when the tazered student was taken away, after he tried to organize other students to protest with him, he shouted something like this “that’s the Patriot Act for you and am I the only martyr in this?”

You must know who’s side John and Ken are on, incidentally right out of a huge victory of having had mayor Villaraigosa veto a $2.7 million award to a Black fireman (claiming racism of course) who called himself proudly “the big dog”; he’d been tasting a bit of dog food on spaghetti, after he played all sorts of tricks on his peers (one of which was very anti-Jew and anti-gay, see 2nd picture). John and Ken got the pictures from other firemen,ratted out the council members (who’d voted 11 to 1 to settle, with no pictures seen), organized a cash-drive for the families of the 5 recently deceased firemen and made a mockery of the system. Villaraigosa got the message. Good on John and Ken and citizens like them.

Entelechy on November 21, 2006 at 10:49 PM

Entelechy, thanks for the J&K update. The ONE thing I miss about SoCal is listening to that station. Thank God for podcasts… And, seriously, did you expect any less from the boys? These guys raised the bullhorn to an art form, of COURSE they’re not going to let that slide!

Back on topic, though, it does seem just a little contrived. While perhaps multiple tazerings were over the top, I wasn’t there so I’m not so sure I can say. The punk definately deserved at least one, that’s for certain. As far as I’m concerned, the rest were icing on the cake a prudent precaution in order to ensure compliance.

As an aside, I am death on police brutality. I think it is an elementary betrayal of the public by its protectors and I think it should be punished heavily. However, I also believe that the police deserve the benefit of the doubt. Theirs is an awesome burden of responsability and, let’s be honest, they’re the ones who’s butts are on the line. My philosophy is: comply with the officer! If you think he’s dead wrong, bring it up later. If you escalate a situation to the point where he has to wonder if he’ll get to go home at the end of shift, you deserve the beating he will most likely administer. From everything I have ever been told (by cops, MPs, security guys etc), it’s usually tactical, not personal. When it gets personal, that’s where I draw the line.

BTW, Rusty, that’s probably why you got hit. You asked a juiced up cop who is dealing with a difficult situation a question that frankly could be interpreted as rabble rousing (justifiable as it may have been). I don’t say it was the best way to contain the situation, but I gaurantee it was the quickest! Incidentally, I hope you weren’t charged with anything.

Militant Bibliophile on November 22, 2006 at 5:18 AM

Militant Bibliophile,
Thanks for trying to fill in the details, but unfortunately you are wrong. The cop I asked if I could ask him a question was a good 100’ away from the incident. He was leaning on his car at the time. Also, he was very relaxed.
Hey, here is some more of the unquestionable authority that all of you seem to desire;
POLICE IN ATLANTA have shot and killed a 92-year-old woman in what appears to be another wrong-house no-knock raid. As I’ve said before, these raids should only occur when there’s reason to believe that lives are in immediate jeopardy. And police should be liable, civilly and criminally, without any shield of official immunity, in cases where these no-knock raids go wrong.
UPDATE: The police claim that they knocked and announced. However, as Radley Balko has noted, often such behavior is pretty notional, with the door being kicked down immediately thereafter. Do the police have video that would support their story? Because in cases like this, I think the burden should be on the government to demonstrate that it acted appropriately. Home, castle, and all that.
Well, they must be on the up and up. The cops said so that finishes it.
Entelechy,
Interesting is this – when the tazered student was taken away, after he tried to organize other students to protest with him…shown untrue in the video.
The officer was interviewed today – heard him speak on the radio – he calmly said that he did everything according to “past 11 p.m. procedures…..Untrue, he didn’t follow his own taser policy. Plus he tasered a handcuffed individual, a clear violation of policy.
A student called in and said that all students get checked for ID cards, after 11 p.m…This has be shown to be false. There were many students who were not ID’ed, not that it matters…other than for accuracy
This guy pretended to go limp and didn’t cooperate and was then tazered…..Not according to the witnesses and the video. However, I have read this same statement.

This is all academic, but the bottom line? There was no danger here, there was no threat. Is this how we want to be treated as a society? Yes the guy is a punk. But hey, so are lots of folks.
Shouldn’t this militaristic attitude be focused on some of our other problems? Should the campus police even be official cops?

When I was in school, folks also did stupid stuff. The difference? We didn’t have real police. Most of these people grew up and became fine mebers of our community. Presently? We would have all beeen fed mood elevators in elementary school. Also, a lot of us would have police records for any of the collage pranks we pulled.

Rustyw on November 22, 2006 at 10:50 AM

It may just be me, but when Mostuffa ToobadImbraindead was yelling and screaming, he sounded like a normal liberal conducting a debate.

JackM on November 22, 2006 at 12:48 PM