UCLA Student Tased: Justifiable?

Here are a few more examples:

hicago: Pregnant Woman gets Tasered after pulled over for speeding and she refuses to sign speeding ticket.

Seattle: Pregnant Woman gets tasered after being pulled over for speeding.

Ohio: 12 year old Boy is Tasered by police officer on school bus.

Ohio: 16 year old Teen Tasered after cops say he refused to follow officers instructions

Florida: 15 year old Girl Tasered by Police after becoming verbally abusive.

Arizona: 13 year old Girl Tasered by Police after yelling obscenities in public library.

Florida: 14 year old Girl Tasered by Police during a disturbance in class room.

Florida: 14 year old Boy Tasered by Police after breaking a window and trying to run away.

Seattle: 16 year old Boy Tasered 4 times by Police after traffic stop over faulty headlight. Cops say he made a furtive move in the back seat.

Arizona: 9 year old Girl Tasered by Police while handcuffed in back of police car.

Florida: 6 year old Mentally Distibured Boy Tasered by Police.

Chicago: 14 year old Boy Tasered by Police and went into cardiac arrest.

West Virginia: 82 year old Man Tasered by Police after unirnating in a park and walking away from police.

Florida: 13 year old Drunk Girl Tasered by Police.

Oregon: 71 year old Partially Blind Woman Tasered by Police.

Baytown: 59 year old Disabled Woman Tasered by Police after continuing to knocking on Brothers door after house sitter doesnt answer door. She had called cops to help her get in. When they refused she continued to knock on the door which led to Cops requesting her to stop etc. Cop indicted of excess force.

Washougal: Woman Tasered by Police after being refusing to sign ticket for a Dog violation. She spoke very limited english and asked the police officer for a translator before signing ticket. The cop also threatened her 11 and 12 year old boys if they interfered. He was a Taser instructor and had Tased her 12 times within 91 seconds. Officer eventually demoted.

http:www.southfloridafusion.com
Click to expand...

Lastly, there is UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:Excessive and lethal force? Amnesty International’s concerns about deaths and ill-treatment involving police use of tasers

That report is a valuable resource for understanding the issues.
 
Is Tasing a person for no ID justified as reasonable force?
Click to expand...

The debate here would be much better served without this kind of absurd hyperbole.

He was "NOT Tasered for no ID." He was Tasered, perhaps unjustifiably, for refusing to comply with the lawful orders of sworn police officers. The justification will hinge on whether he was engaged in active or passive resistance to the officers.
 
Hey kirin, since you're the expert on tazings gone bad, have you got any info on the Florida officer tazing 1,700 people in 9 months?
 
This just in...

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10411372

"Constable zaps himself and innocent teen with Taser"

A constable who took a Taser to a central Auckland domestic dispute wound up shocking himself and a 16-year-old and later pepper-spraying an innocent 21-year-old woman.

The constable accidentally blasted himself with the Taser's 50,000 volts as he reloaded the weapon while trying to stun a man at the centre of the domestic incident on October 1. One shot accidentally struck the man's teenage son.

After five attempts to hit the man, the officer eventually used pepper spray. This hit the man's 21-year-old daughter, also an unintended target.

The man eventually gave himself up. The constable, who had had Taser training, was not injured.

The weapon is the police's much-vaunted alternative to firearms and is being tested by 170 frontline police in Auckland and Wellington.

Police revealed details of the incident after Weekend Herald inquiries.

Detective Inspector Bernie Hollewand of Auckland City police confirmed that the constable fired the Taser five times - three times loaded with cartridges and twice in "contact" mode, where it is used like a cattle prod. The first shot hit the son.

Mr Hollewand said the officer claimed that just as the red laser sight was on the man's chest, he pulled his son across him.

It is believed that at one point the officer received a jolt after putting his hand in the Taser.

"The constable did remove one of the cartridges before a five-second discharge cycle was complete and he did feel in his hand that the device was arcing 50,000 volts."

But an official police update of the Taser trial, published on October 17, makes no mention of the constable firing five times, or missing his target, zapping himself or hitting the boy. It simply says a man was contained after the Taser was fired.

Police Commissioner Howard Broad also did not mention the incident when he appeared before a parliamentary committee, saying frontline officers supported the introduction of the weapon, and yesterday National Party police spokesman Simon Power wanted to know why.

Police media officer Jon Neilson said the fact a Taser had been fired more than once in a single incident was not "relevant".
 
He was "NOT Tasered for no ID." He was Tasered, perhaps unjustifiably, for refusing to comply with the lawful orders of sworn police officers.
Click to expand...

Sworn to what? Uphold and defend the Constitution, perhaps?

badbob
 
He was "NOT Tasered for no ID." He was Tasered, perhaps unjustifiably, for refusing to comply with the lawful orders of sworn police officers. The justification will hinge on whether he was engaged in active or passive resistance to the officers.
Click to expand...

A very common legal agruement by law enforcement is as follows:

"Subject was given several commands, but did not comply."
Click to expand...

Those 9 simple words go a long way into justifying the police officers actions in court. But, the underlying issue is not failure to follow law enfrocement command. But, rather whether the command is morally, ethically or legally allowed.

If your walking down the street and a police officer tells you to standup against the wall, spread your hands and legs apart, so that he can do a patdown. Would you "comply"?

Sure most of us would because we have nothing to hide, thus we dont mind the intrusiveness. But, the US Constitution prohibits law enforcement from performing a search of persons or properties without implied consent by the owner or a court order unless there is reasonable cause to detail you in relation to a crime. Only at that point may they perform an unauthorized search of yourself or your property.

So does this mean you should be tasered because you failed to follow a law enforcement command that you felt was illegal, unreasonable or morally objective?
 
This is what happens when too many dumbasses cross paths at once.

The student was a dumbass. College kids often are.

The cops were bigger dumbasses- and they're not supposed to be.

Anyone who's ever been a cop, anywhere that matters, soon learns the first rule of dealing with rabble-rousers. That rule is that when you have to take them out of their element (a crowd of their homies) you DO NOT screw around about it. If the decision to arrest is made, the reasonable minumum necessary force is applied, the arrest is effected and the subject is removed from the crowd IMMEDIATELY and with all haste. Under no circumstances do you argue, debate, negotiate. Strike like lightning and let everybody 'stare in wonder' at the empty spot where the loudmouth was standing- like "Wonder if I'm gonna be next....Hey guys lets go watch the football game."

I don't know what the laws were where this occurred, or if there was an arrestable offense committed by this goober.

Did anybody hear them tell this guy he was under arrest? I didn't.

I DO know that if there was, these guys turned a simple arrest into a monkey-f__k, a possible lawsuit and a PR nightmare. Notice how they wound up dragging Mr. Dumbass off anyhow? Wouldn't have been much simpler and cleaner if they had simply just done that at the outset, instead of giving him the Ready Kilowatt treatment in front of a crowd of onlookers? Notice how the situation nearly became a riot? I'm not sure those kids wouldn't have been justified in coming to Loudmouth's aid. If they had swarmed the cops, someone might well have been shot. The cops screwed the pooch big time in this one. They were there to maintain or restore order, and they nearly caused a riot where a simple arrest and extraction would have sufficed.

There are two justified uses of force by the police- one is for defense, and the other is for control. (Graham v Connor?-I'm a little rusty on my SCOTUS these days.) You (the cop) tell the guy he's under arrest, to put his hands on the wall, etc.. If he says "Screw you flatfoot" and shoves his hands under his armpits, then you are justified in using that force which is reasonable and necessary to effect the arrest- control. If he swings at you, you duck/block and knock his ass off- defense. You can taser him in defense as well, assuming there's time to deploy the device. You cannot taser him because you're pissed off, because he swung at you.

Any credible force continum transfers the decision for the use of force (as well as how much) to the suspect. ("Uh,... put down the tire iron there Leroy, or I'll blow a big nasty hole through you with this nice shotgun. Thank you. Excellent decision, by the way.") It also calls for the immediate cessation of force when it is no longer necessary.

In my experience, the public in general doesn't have a problem with the police using any degree of reasonable force. But when we start using force as on-scene punishment, we take on the role of judge & jury.

The public and the courts will not tolerate that- nor should they.

The use of Taser on a subject who poses a direct threat is not unreasonable. But is it reasonable to repeatedly use Taser, which takes people off their feet, as a 'pain compliance' mechanism to get someone ON their feet? I think not. You do what these guys did in the end- you remove them physically, like a piece of unwanted furniture.

I'm betting that Mr. Loudmouth gets a fat check outta this deal, before he's through. You can also bet that if these cops were working for me, they would be canned or reassigned to parking control ASAP.

What a stupid, unnecessary fuster-cluck.
 
Hey kirin, since you're the expert on tazings gone bad, have you got any info on the Florida officer tazing 1,700 people in 9 months?
Click to expand...

Florida ranks the highest in the country with Taser-associated deaths with 27. I dont remember the exact statistics your referring to. But, West Palm Beach County had tased more than 1,000 people during one year. I think Delray Beach and Boynton Beach were shown to have used tasers the most.

But, 1700 in 9 months from one officer seems too high to be true?

South Florida has changed some of their laws after Boynton Beach Police had tasered a black women over a speeding ticket. The town hall had been overrun by black advocates who were appauled by this taser. So police chiefs got together and changed policies.

You can read the indepth report about it here. Tasers: Are Officers to quick to Fire? where you can also watch the video of this tasing, and a video of the Boynton Beach PD Taser Instructor going over the situation step by step based on department policies.
 
Last edited:
Again, for kirin. (I don't have the quote feature, so I copied your post and italized your statements.)

Those 9 simple words go a long way into justifying the police officers actions in court. But, the underlying issue is not failure to follow law enfrocement command. But, rather whether the command is morally, ethically or legally allowed.

We have posted reasons that the request to leave was legal. As such, it was ethical. The moral side of the coin depends on your morals. Mine are different than yours. I think it's okay for unwed people to live "in sin". That's a moral issue; it's going to be different for different people.

I’ve asked for a CA LEOs input for statutes concerning the “refusing to comply with a LEO” on another forum. Sadly, I don't know what CA statutes say. The short answer here in CT is you can not use force to resist arrest.

CGS Sec. 53a-23. Use of physical force to resist arrest not justified. A person is not justified in using physical force to resist an arrest by a reasonably identifiable peace officer, whether such arrest is legal or illegal.

While being escorted out, the kid plainly said, "Get your hands off me". At that point, he interfered. At that point, he broke the law.

If your walking down the street and a police officer tells you to standup against the wall, spread your hands and legs apart, so that he can do a patdown. Would you "comply"?

You better! If the officer can articulate why he/she felt it necessary to conduct a pat-down, your refusing will likely get you tased. You need a better understanding of the law before you make statements like that. There is valid case law allowing LEOs to do exactly what you are questioning under certain circumstances.

Sure most of us would because we have nothing to hide, thus we dont mind the intrusiveness. But, the US Constitution prohibits law enforcement from performing a search of persons or properties without implied consent by the owner or a court order unless there is reasonable cause to detail you in relation to a crime. Only at that point may they perform an unauthorized search of yourself or your property.

Again, you should learn a bit more about the law before you make statements like that. Learn the law better and you’ll be surprised at what steps an officer can take. We may not like the case law that allows officers to do certain things. But, denying they have that authority is not going to change that authority until the laws change. Your interpertation of the Constitution is great. Your interpertation of law is wrong.

As an aside, do you know the difference between being "tased" and shocked. The officers didn't "tase" the kid. That is a full "5-second" ride. They used a short burst of electricity to gain complaince. I've had both. Being tased is quite enlightening. Being shocked is a minor reminder.

I'm glad you have compiled a whole database of taser incidents. I have a few questions for you:

How many people have died from tasing?

No, I don't want Ammesty International propaganda, I want medical examiner reports. You will likely find it's zero.

How many lives have been saved by tasers?

You're likely find a mutitude of incidents where the subject should have been shot, but some officer (probably working outside of the policy) attempted a taser instead. The taser worked.

Don't be so one-sided and listen to both sides.
 
Without getting complicated, I have an electrically unstable heart. Tase me, and I could very well go into cardiac arrest.

Saying that people who died from a Taser incident don't count because they could have died if they were wrestled physically doesn't cut it. Following this logic without playing any tricks or distortions, if I shoot someone to death, they could just have easily died if I stabbed them- so it was their own fault for being fragile, and had nothing to do with the gun.

As for the guys who think it's funny and the kid just needed some respect taught to him, I'll put up five grand of my own in escrow as long as you do the same. We'll meet up, a third party filming company of my choice will record it for posterity, and I'll tase you repeatedly while telling you to get up. If you actually manage to get up, you get your five thousand back along with mine. Otherwise, I keep it all. Sound like a good deal?
 
badbob- you do us wrong. There are better films for that incident than the one you posted.

I could film you at the range and take a couple of seconds here and there and make you look like a buffoon. Editing is great.

Here's the whole show:

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/content/news/video/taser_video3a.html

Have a suspended license. Be placed under arrest. Don't comply. Get tased. Person gets out of car. Person gets handcuffed. (Although, I have to admit the person does continue to play at being a poor abused innocent. :barf: )

Listen to the comments on the use of other force options.

Why is it necessary for police to put themselves in harms way when they have other options?

Isn't it better to handle it with the least use of force?

Tasers are a less-use-of-force option.
 
Oh.... (long sigh of angst)... Heist, Heist, Heist, what I say?

You are mis-stating the incident. I assume you haven't read all of the posts. That's okay. It happens a lot in today's world. :confused:

They didn't tase him. They gave him compliance jolts. There is a difference.

As to your condition, I'd suggest you keep yourself out of incidents that may cause an officer to tase you. It's likely, you won't get tased.
 
I probably won't last long on this forum, but ...

I'm going to have to brace a senior member.

invssgt- you stated

"You can also bet that if these cops were working for me, they would be canned or reassigned to parking control ASAP."

My current Chief makes statements like that. He's about ready to retire for medical reasons. He too, makes decisions about something that he doesn't yet have all of the facts about. I'll let you know when he's leaving. I'll have such a warm feeling in my heart knowing we're getting another one that makes snap decisions.
 
Oh.... (long sigh of angst)... Heist, Heist, Heist, what I say?

You are mis-stating the incident. I assume you haven't read all of the posts. That's okay. It happens a lot in today's world.
Click to expand...

Prove it without cute little backhand insults? ;)
 
California's laws are available at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/ -

Penal Code 835a. Any peace officer who has reasonable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a public offense may use reasonable force to effect the arrest, to prevent escape or to overcome resistance.
A peace officer who makes or attempts to make an arrest need not retreat or desist from his efforts by reason of the resistance or threatened resistance of the person being arrested; nor shall such officer be deemed an aggressor or lose his right to self-defense by the use of reasonable force to effect the arrest or to prevent escape or to overcome resistance.
Click to expand...

The "overcome resistance" wording is interesting with respect to this case.
 
If the couple of articles I've read are close to the truth, he refused to show a student I.D. (even though it was after 11 p.m. and that's the rule) because he thought he was being discriminated against for some reason or other. I'd guess the real problem started when he kept encouraging the mob that had formed to join his protest. John



"This is a long-standing library policy to ensure the safety of students during the late-night hours," said UCLA Police Department spokeswoman Nancy Greenstein.

She said police tried to escort Tabatabainejad, 23, out of the library after he refused to provide identification. Tabatabainejad instead encouraged others at the library to join his resistance, and when a crowd began to gather, police used the stun gun on him, Greenstein said.

Tabatabainejad was arrested for resisting and obstructing a police officer and later released on his own recognizance. He declined to comment Wednesday night."
 
You know, Heist- you're right.

I can't prove my stance on this subject. I do know no barbs were shot into the guy. That means he didn't get "tased". I have enough knowledge of a taser to know the taser sounds do not equate to a "tasing". I know it means a compliance jolt.

If you have information that contradicts that, I'm more than happy to entertain it.

I'm a LEO. I tend to take the side of the officers. I have yet to see any information to counter that stance. IMO, you and others are posting conjecture.

I posted a link to a forum that shows a by-stander's thoughts on the subject. That seems to have been ignored. I think his/her views have equal validity. I'm sad to see you think they don't. It's probably because you and others have already written the incident off to show your side.

You have already slam-dunked the officers, and you did it before the ink was even dry on the report. That's not balanced reporting; that's not balanced thinking.

But, it does make for an interesting debate.
 
209, I agree that we're not being told the whole story, so everyone involved deserves the benefit of a doubt. I've heard the saying that every story is "her side, his side and the truth." Time will tell what the real story is.

badbob
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top