Rodney Kinggburndred wrote:
When do the police ever lose?IRONCHEF wrote:
You know, after reading this article, it's clear the guy was a trouble maker...he probably had a card, but he refused to show it and he refused to leave the library. That alone is enough for me to say he's screwed and deserved to be given the police's full indiscretion in their allowed use of force..which they did.
As for the debate of him being able to stand up or not, if he wasn't fighting back/resisting so much, he could have stood up. The video is inconclusive to truly know if he could have stood or not. As for repeated tazings...it's the police's right to do so, though as i've said before, they should have just hauled him off. They had no problem dragging him out of that hallway after the mob grew too big.
I have no doubt that police will win that case even if a judge doesn't throw it out, which I'm sure it will..be thrown out.
Last night on the news, it was reported that tazings have killed 15 people in the recent advent of their use. They are non-lethal in and of themselves, but because of adverse conditions (largely unknown by the tazing police), the recovery time the body needs may be slowed, voluntary things may not recover, and sometimes involuntary things dont' recover.
Now add an adrenaline-paced, mob frenzy environment, with constant threat to oneself..and it can be easy to not apply a tazing correctly.
but from some videos I've seen of tazings, it's often grotesquely unwarranted and probably criminal in it's application from the police. I've read of cops using a tazer on a 7 year old peaceful protester. that's some scary stuff.
Now add an adrenaline-paced, mob frenzy environment, with constant threat to oneself..and it can be easy to not apply a tazing correctly.
but from some videos I've seen of tazings, it's often grotesquely unwarranted and probably criminal in it's application from the police. I've read of cops using a tazer on a 7 year old peaceful protester. that's some scary stuff.
K, thanks for the info.IRONCHEF wrote:
Last night on the news, it was reported that tazings have killed 15 people in the recent advent of their use. They are non-lethal in and of themselves, but because of adverse conditions (largely unknown by the tazing police), the recovery time the body needs may be slowed, voluntary things may not recover, and sometimes involuntary things dont' recover.
Now add an adrenaline-paced, mob frenzy environment, with constant threat to oneself..and it can be easy to not apply a tazing correctly.
but from some videos I've seen of tazings, it's often grotesquely unwarranted and probably criminal in it's application from the police. I've read of cops using a tazer on a 7 year old peaceful protester. that's some scary stuff.
Thats crazy, I'm suprised they didn't kill the 7 year old. A 7 year old's physiology can no way in hell stand up to 50,000 volts of electricity.IRONCHEF wrote:
but from some videos I've seen of tazings, it's often grotesquely unwarranted and probably criminal in it's application from the police. I've read of cops using a tazer on a 7 year old peaceful protester. that's some scary stuff.
To the OP, this is bullshit. That fucker deserved everthing he got.
1. Because of tighter security rules students need to show ID. If he was asked to leave, why didn't he leave?
2. He was asked multiple times to stand up before he was ever tazed. I've been in handcuffs, I don't want to hear bullshit about not being able to stand up.
3. He backtalked and refused to follow orders several times.
That little bitch is lucky he didn't get a 9mm taze behind the fucking ear! MAFIA STYLE!!!
1. Because of tighter security rules students need to show ID. If he was asked to leave, why didn't he leave?
2. He was asked multiple times to stand up before he was ever tazed. I've been in handcuffs, I don't want to hear bullshit about not being able to stand up.
3. He backtalked and refused to follow orders several times.
That little bitch is lucky he didn't get a 9mm taze behind the fucking ear! MAFIA STYLE!!!
But isn't that why we (the Citizen) have the job of, in essence, policing the police? As common people, there is the hope that, since we are not jaded by constantly being surrounded by violence, we stay in touch with our humanity (minus the psycho serial killers and fox news anchors) And no, I am not saying the Police have lost their sense of humanity, but we have all heard of the stories of soldiers, back from combat, that have lost the ability to pull back after being immersed in thigh stress, life or death situations.IRONCHEF wrote:
Another aspect of this tazing incident....it's outrageous because those soft-minded rich kids witnessing the ordeal have a much more limited measurement of what's acceptable and what's not, whereas those cops do. THis is manifest in the relative calmness present with the officers, but the fearful, angry, and anxious attitudes of the mob. But if the mob were in the officers' shoes for a month, saw what is common, what is acceptable, possibly what is not acceptable, etc...and if the novelty of the use of a tazer is gone..they'd react differently. It's what a judge will use to reason, and hopefully a jury if it goes that far. My guess is that if the mob were not new to the tactic or the viewing of tazings..they'd have skipped the reaction and helped convince the offender to submit and stop being an asshead. I think I would have been one of those people.
The police may have experience dealing with unruly people beyond y comprehension, but what I do have experience in is what I believe is humane and, ultimately, what is right.
Im glad you do too.Revelstoke wrote:
god im glad i live in canada
Malloy must go
I think you are probably doing your job when staring at a white wall listening to muzak under heavy sedation.Miller wrote:
I think these officers are doing their job. Let it be. Of course, if it's the school security, fire them.
Last edited by -CARNIFEX-[LOC] (2006-11-18 02:13:43)
Whah whah whah. No, tasering a non compliant trespasser at the request of UCLA personel is their job. OMG!Gamematt wrote:
omg, tasing a student is their job?? omg omg omg omg omgMiller wrote:
I think these officers are doing their job. Let it be. Of course, if it's the school security, fire them.
Malloy must go
The point is that this young man controlled his own fate. And he did not choose wisely. Lets rewind, shall we. Im pretty sure there are rules posted at the entrance stating proper identification is required for admittance. See where Im going with this? He CHOSE to ignore that. UCLA library employees approached the young man and asked for ID and he failed to provide any, as well as refusing to leave said library. Campus security was called, at the request of the university, and the young man was still defiant to them. The campus security then called the LAPD (you liberals getting all of these points of circumventing an altercation yet? No, ok I'll continue) who then arrived an asked the young man for ID and he................STOP.........
Said- Im not leaving, I dont have proper identification, go get bent. Or something along those lines.
SHOULD HAVE SAID- *rationally and cooperatively* Im sorry sir, I forgot it but I can provide you with any other credentials you need. SSN, license number, full name, address etc. No. Wont work? Ok Im sorry for all of this, I needed to do some research but I will come back some other time with my proper ID.
Back to what he said _________________________Im a whiny little priveleged bitch who has such a high sense of self entitlement, that I feel I dont have to follow rules everyone else on the fucking planet does. You, officer, can go fuck yourselaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhh zap zap zap zap zap.
+1 for police and people who obey rules
-1 for faggy little brats and those who defend them
DEEZ ........out.
Said- Im not leaving, I dont have proper identification, go get bent. Or something along those lines.
SHOULD HAVE SAID- *rationally and cooperatively* Im sorry sir, I forgot it but I can provide you with any other credentials you need. SSN, license number, full name, address etc. No. Wont work? Ok Im sorry for all of this, I needed to do some research but I will come back some other time with my proper ID.
Back to what he said _________________________Im a whiny little priveleged bitch who has such a high sense of self entitlement, that I feel I dont have to follow rules everyone else on the fucking planet does. You, officer, can go fuck yourselaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhh zap zap zap zap zap.
+1 for police and people who obey rules
-1 for faggy little brats and those who defend them
DEEZ ........out.
Last edited by deeznutz1245 (2006-11-18 02:29:28)
Malloy must go
Actually, I think you'll find that their job is to ensure the safety and security of patrons with a minimum of force.deeznutz1245 wrote:
Whah whah whah. No, tasering a non compliant trespasser at the request of UCLA personel is their job. OMG!
Fire arm, oc spray (worse than taser), K-9, baton, biting (I just threw that in there). These are all things they have at their disposal that were not tactically deployed on the subject.Bubbalo wrote:
Actually, I think you'll find that their job is to ensure the safety and security of patrons with a minimum of force.deeznutz1245 wrote:
Whah whah whah. No, tasering a non compliant trespasser at the request of UCLA personel is their job. OMG!
Malloy must go
Because he was clearly so much larger than them that they couldn't overpower, obviously.
Not slightly biased at all...and I did not need to see the Video to know that if you do what you are told by a police officer things are fine ...if you ignore them expect the consiquencesProtecus wrote:
No offense, but considering I posted this about 2 seconds ago and the video is at least 6 minutes long, you're slighty biased. Check the video, then see how you feel. I agree, I'm all for officers being allowed to do their job; they keep me safe. But this is not their job.
All for the Police on this one
If you cant appreciate that its my point of view...dont make me appreciate yours!
and it was 1 minute 58 seconds after you posted
Last edited by joker3327 (2006-11-18 05:27:25)
My point exactly. If I'd follow IRONCHEF's logic, nearly any form of violence would become acceptable over time, if witnessed often enough.Protecus wrote:
But isn't that why we (the Citizen) have the job of, in essence, policing the police? As common people, there is the hope that, since we are not jaded by constantly being surrounded by violence, we stay in touch with our humanity (minus the psycho serial killers and fox news anchors) And no, I am not saying the Police have lost their sense of humanity, but we have all heard of the stories of soldiers, back from combat, that have lost the ability to pull back after being immersed in thigh stress, life or death situations.IRONCHEF wrote:
Another aspect of this tazing incident....it's outrageous because those soft-minded rich kids witnessing the ordeal have a much more limited measurement of what's acceptable and what's not, whereas those cops do. THis is manifest in the relative calmness present with the officers, but the fearful, angry, and anxious attitudes of the mob. But if the mob were in the officers' shoes for a month, saw what is common, what is acceptable, possibly what is not acceptable, etc...and if the novelty of the use of a tazer is gone..they'd react differently. It's what a judge will use to reason, and hopefully a jury if it goes that far. My guess is that if the mob were not new to the tactic or the viewing of tazings..they'd have skipped the reaction and helped convince the offender to submit and stop being an asshead. I think I would have been one of those people.
The police may have experience dealing with unruly people beyond y comprehension, but what I do have experience in is what I believe is humane and, ultimately, what is right.
If people don't stand up for their beliefs and always let the cops decide what level of violence is supposed to be "acceptable", we are headed straight towards a police state.
Just because you are used to a specific police tactic, that doesn't mean it suddenly becomes acceptable.
The law regulates the level of violence a police officer is allowed to "administer" when dealing with a specific situation, and it also requires that said officer is actually able to make a correct decision with regard to that.
I know that police officers are humans, too and are bound to become emotionally dulled over the years.
That's why, at some point in time, we need to remind them what the acceptable level of violence is from our point of view, and ask them to maybe re-think their approach here and there.
Naturally, the police's view and that of the "victim" tell different stories of the incident. Some witnesses have stated though, that the student was indeed already walking towards the door with his backpack on his shoulder when one of the officers grabbed him / put a hand on him.
Now, if that is true, the officer made a tactical mistake right there. Why put unnecessary stress on the subject ? Why try to grab him and provoke resistance when he is walking out and poses no threat to anyone ?
Let him walk out and handle the situation outside, where there are fewer people and you can put him in the squad car without creating such a drama. I have said it before and I'll say it again:
It was just a student in a university library, not some gang lord going berserk in south central.
No need to even try to subdue him if he is walking out.
Some have also said that the officers were afraid the "mob" could turn against them and therefore used the tazer.... What ?!?!
Firstly, what kind of "mob" ? some kids in a university library is all I see there. You'd have to be very paranoid to believe that these kids would actually try to physically assault you to free "one of them". That's ridiculous.
Secondly, even if you consider the witnesses/bystanders around you a "mob", why do you think that the use of additional violence on the suspect is going to make the "mob" less likely to attack you ?
Now, I know all we do is speculate. The video doesn't show how the incident started and what words were exchanged before the officers tried to subdue the student.
Nevertheless, I still believe the level of violence that was ultimately applied was uncalled for and out of proportion.
Way too much force if you ask me. I hope this is investigated and yeah the cops involved - would love too see them get fired.
All of the above, including taser weren't needed. They could of dragged him anywhere from the beginning, or even after the first time they tasered him. They didn't. They got emotional, and decided to be big tough guys and shock some KID repeatedly. It wasn't necessary.deeznutz1245 wrote:
Fire arm, oc spray (worse than taser), K-9, baton, biting (I just threw that in there). These are all things they have at their disposal that were not tactically deployed on the subject.Bubbalo wrote:
Actually, I think you'll find that their job is to ensure the safety and security of patrons with a minimum of force.deeznutz1245 wrote:
Whah whah whah. No, tasering a non compliant trespasser at the request of UCLA personel is their job. OMG!
I was thinking exactly that when I watched the video. People in the crowd should have tried to arrest the cop holding the taser, even if it they might have got tased themselves. I guess no-one felt like a hero that day. Or maybe they thought filming it would be acheive the same effect.The Last Black Winegum wrote:
Do you have Citizens-Arrest in America?
'Cause I know of someone who witnessed cops abusing their powers on a defenceless handcuffed person, and they tried to place the cop under citizens arrest. The cop refused to comply (big surprise) but was later charged with 'Impersonating a police-officer' as he was legally no longer a cop when placed under citizens-arrest....
EDIT: Anyway, who needs police on a university campus anyway? I just finished a 4 year degree and never once saw any police or even security guards. There wasn't a single violent incident that whole time. Once someone thought their phone had been stolen, but a friend had taken it to give it back to them later, as they had walked out of the computer labs leaving it behind.
EDIT: And you only need ID in the library to check books out....
Last edited by UnOriginalNuttah (2006-11-20 13:03:15)
The youngest person ever to kill a police officer while restrained in handcuffs is 7 years old. The oldest is 93. Lets see you go and put your life on the line every fuckin day and see how you react. The dumb little brat was in the wrong the second he defied the rules. Case closed.Bubbalo wrote:
Because he was clearly so much larger than them that they couldn't overpower, obviously.
Malloy must go
UM.....You do realize the police are not allowed to DRAG anybody while in restraints unless it is to save their life, right? Yeah...some bitchy little brat who couldnt follow the rules already has sued for getting dragged by police after failing to comply.Dec45 wrote:
All of the above, including taser weren't needed. They could of dragged him anywhere from the beginning, or even after the first time they tasered him. They didn't. They got emotional, and decided to be big tough guys and shock some KID repeatedly. It wasn't necessary.deeznutz1245 wrote:
Fire arm, oc spray (worse than taser), K-9, baton, biting (I just threw that in there). These are all things they have at their disposal that were not tactically deployed on the subject.Bubbalo wrote:
Actually, I think you'll find that their job is to ensure the safety and security of patrons with a minimum of force.
Malloy must go
'In the wrong', does not justify shocking him that many times. You can argue all day long that because he was wrong, anything he got he deserved. But that's a pretty barbaric mindset, that doesn't translate well with many other cases of disobedience. You can pick someone up with your buddy cop, and carry him... Anything. Are you trying to degrade the capability of the human physiology to carry or move another human in a multitude of ways, to the point you suggest that shocking him with 50,000 volts is the only method, and the best? Think a little.deeznutz1245 wrote:
The youngest person ever to kill a police officer while restrained in handcuffs is 7 years old. The oldest is 93. Lets see you go and put your life on the line every fuckin day and see how you react. The dumb little brat was in the wrong the second he defied the rules. Case closed.Bubbalo wrote:
Because he was clearly so much larger than them that they couldn't overpower, obviously.
I'm sorry to inform you, but any cop killed by a handcuffed 7 or 93 year old, is probably even more stupid then the ones who thought tasering a kid is going to make him stand up, or the student who didn't comply.
Um, wrong. You need to think a little. A restrained subject is required by law to move under his own free will. Police cannot drag or buddy up to carry. They followed procedure. You assume that a fallen officer of the peace is stupid because of the age of a subject? Do you know the circumstances? You must because you "informed" me. Freak things happen to normal people every day. Putting your ass on the line every day only increases your chances of something strange and uncontrollabe ending your life. Thats why militaru and police train, train and train again. They follow procedure and they do the best they can to keep us safe when they arent throwing fucky little trust fund liberals out of university libraries. And Im sorry if I sympathize for them and the adversity they face every day.Dec45 wrote:
'In the wrong', does not justify shocking him that many times. You can argue all day long that because he was wrong, anything he got he deserved. But that's a pretty barbaric mindset, that doesn't translate well with many other cases of disobedience. You can pick someone up with your buddy cop, and carry him... Anything. Are you trying to degrade the capability of the human physiology to carry or move another human in a multitude of ways, to the point you suggest that shocking him with 50,000 volts is the only method, and the best? Think a little.deeznutz1245 wrote:
The youngest person ever to kill a police officer while restrained in handcuffs is 7 years old. The oldest is 93. Lets see you go and put your life on the line every fuckin day and see how you react. The dumb little brat was in the wrong the second he defied the rules. Case closed.Bubbalo wrote:
Because he was clearly so much larger than them that they couldn't overpower, obviously.
I'm sorry to inform you, but any cop killed by a handcuffed 7 or 93 year old, is probably even more stupid then the ones who thought tasering a kid is going to make him stand up, or the student who didn't comply.
Malloy must go
To whoever gave me karma without leaving their name, and then decided to accuse me of not having evidence to support my claim that the youngest person to kill a police officer was 7 yrs old. No, I did not "HEAR" it like you accused. I have a BA in criminal justice and I learned it there. Also, I learned it when I took my POST and PATH handcuff certifications. The names and dates of all parties were provided and we discussed the criminal cases, respectively. Is that good enough? I mean, I know going out and doing something for real isnt as reliable as googling shit on the internet, but I will try harder. I promise.
This is what the dipshit said after giving me karma, cut and paste......"till you could produce sources, dont put assinign ages and numbers. care to elaborate how a 7 yeard old killed an officer, or, you just "heard"...."
Moron. I didnt provide a link for you so it must have never happened. I had a threesome on my 25th birthday and that isnt on the internet ( I dont think....hhmmm?) so it never must have happened. Oh wait I have one. I went to work today. On the internet? Shit, I must not have gone to work.
This is what the dipshit said after giving me karma, cut and paste......"till you could produce sources, dont put assinign ages and numbers. care to elaborate how a 7 yeard old killed an officer, or, you just "heard"...."
Moron. I didnt provide a link for you so it must have never happened. I had a threesome on my 25th birthday and that isnt on the internet ( I dont think....hhmmm?) so it never must have happened. Oh wait I have one. I went to work today. On the internet? Shit, I must not have gone to work.
Last edited by deeznutz1245 (2006-11-20 21:46:53)
Malloy must go
you still dont answer the question. how the fuck did a 7 year old kill a cop? I guess you dont care to elaborate but you sure are throwing me a resume, like anyone fucking asked.deeznutz1245 wrote:
To whoever gave me karma without leaving their name, and then decided to accuse me of not having evidence to support my claim that the youngest person to kill a police officer was 7 yrs old. No, I did not "HEAR" it like you accused. I have a BA in criminal justice and I learned it there. Also, I learned it when I took my POST and PATH handcuff certifications. The names and dates of all parties were provided and we discussed the criminal cases, respectively. Is that good enough? I mean, I know going out and doing something for real isnt as reliable as googling shit on the internet, but I will try harder. I promise.
it was I said the cat
im really not caring about pissing anybody off right now. If ive offended you or anyone else....tough.
Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2006-11-20 21:49:31)