Slashdot Mirror
Students Put UCLA Taser Video On YouTube
dircha writes "As widely reported, an incident in which Iranian-American student Mostafa Tabatabainejad was tasered up to five times by UCLA police on Friday, has been captured by a fellow student using a video enabled cell phone and published to YouTube. From the Daily Bruin: 'At around 11:30 p.m. Tuesday, Tabatabainejad, a fourth-year Middle Eastern and North African studies and philosophy student, was asked to leave the library for failing to present his BruinCard during a random check. The 23-year-old student was hit with a Taser five times when he did not leave quickly and cooperatively upon being asked to do so.' In a story which has raised concerns of racial profiling, police brutality and the health risks of taser use, the ubiquity of video cell phone technology has given us a first hand record of an incident which might otherwise have been a he-said, she-said affair. While the publishing of the video to YouTube has given the issue compelling popular exposure beyond the immediate campus community."
...if after watching this video, you see what the LAPD(and by extension, the UCLA PD) are willing to do on camera, and in front of dozens of witnesses, what do they do without people watching?
And am I the only one that upon hearing, Police burtality" and "Caught of tape" are completely unsurprised the LAPD are somehow involved?
"Useless organic meatbag" -HK-47
This was pretty sick. If you get hit by a tazer it's pretty impossible to stand up for at least a few minutes. That's the entire point of a tazer. They could have just handcuffed him and carried him out. I hope these "officers" go to jail.
I keep hearing people complaining "if he had just listened" or "all he had to do was get up." But seriously, think about it -- should he really have been tased repeatedly or simply arrested?
1. After being shocked repeatedly, could he even have been ABLE to "just" stand up?
2. After being shocked repeatedly, would be have been in a mental state to understand the cops' commands?
3. He was on the floor. An irritating act, but something deserving electrocution?
4. What if someone asks for a warrant, should they also get electrocuted. After all "all he had to do was let them search."
Put simply, this was WRONG. The kid deserves to be arrested, NOT electrocuted. To those of you who say "tasing is non-lethal," well, i dare you to do it to yourself. Post a video on YouTube to prove it.
This is why google bought youtube... they bought it for the power of its media distribution...
Does it go on forever?
Nice to see that the introduction of street corner cameras is being matched by our ability to watch them.
~ a low user id is no indication I have a clue what I'm talking about.
A) You don't need "beyond reasonable doubt" in a civil suit. B) There were a couple dozen witnesses on the scene, most of whom appeared angry enough to testify in court. C) You get clear views of several of the officers' faces. D) The officers' voices can probably be identified.
On a side note, it'll be interesting to see how the officers justify their refusal to give their badge numbers (which was reportedly followed up with a threat to the person who asked). It makes it appear that they knew what they did was an excessive use of force, and were trying to hide their identities. That will look EXTREMELY bad to a judge and/or jury.
Four Officers... one kid come on.. They could have talked this kid into the handcuffs, while he was a jerk he wasnt exactly a threat.
Sorry the police are here to serve and protect, their actions are the actions of thugs who enjoy weilding power. So while I might not be deeply sorry for the kid, I am deeply ashamed of the actions of the law enforcement officials.
Storm
I will say about this what I said about Rodney King: there is nothing that could have happened before the camera started rolling that could justify what those cops did. I don't care if this guy was Hannibal Lecter; once a suspect is incapacitated, further use of this kind of force is torture, not restraint.
Now there will no doubt be a flood of whining along the lines of, "Oh cops have such a tough job, and they deal with scumbags all day, and you just don't understaaaand!" Whatever. About, oh, fifteen years ago it was my job to render medical care to a group of people who had quite actively been trying to kill me a little while before, and who would have kept trying if they'd had the chance. And I did it, no tasers or billy clubs or attack dogs or waterboarding required. Which is why, whether it's happening halfway around the world at Abu Ghraib or right here at home in America, I have no trouble saying: fuck this shit. The people who do such things to prisoners aren't cops, or soldiers, or any kind of public servant. They're criminals, and because of their abuse of power, should be treated even more harshly than we treat serial killers, pedophiles, and other such scum.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
It is a cop's job to deal professionally (which includes not using excessive force) with people who are causing trouble. If they can't do it without going apeshit on the guy, they shouldn't be cops.
A civilian who reacted like this to somebody taunting him, arguing with him, whatever, would be headed to prison for aggravated assault. Cops, because of their position of power, should face even harsher penalties for such behavior.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Nonlethals have just become a substitute for good police work.
The number one test of a good officer is how well he (or she) can solve a problem without resorting to the use of force. If he can look someone in the eye, figure out what is going through that person's head, and assert the authority or voice the reasoning necessary to get compliance with a lawful request, he has done his job properly. Resorting to force to compel behavior is already a kind of failure. Of course there are some people out there who are just hell-bent on harming others - that's why the option of force exists - but clearly that's not what Tabatabainejad was about.
And resorting to force to compel behavior when the person in question is not being violent and is causing no harm to anyone, well, that's beyond failure as an officer, that's failure as a human being.
The officers who did this are a far greater threat to safety on the UCLA campus than that student would ever be. I do hope the university administration recognizes this and responds accordingly. If they do not, then we must seriously question the administration's commitment to protecting their students.
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
Much like Kuroshin before it, the sign of the end for Digg is when they start begging slashdot's community to come over for fresher news.
Slashdot is a discussion forum. The power here is not timeliness, it's the audience.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
That matters not, my friend. Police are trained, for good reason, to detain someone with the least force necessary. Anything beyond is police brutality. Part of being a police officer is being able to withstand taunting (and much worse) without losing your composure and being able to follow the official protocols for detaining someone. I could not be a police officer. If I was a police officer and I had to witness some of the things they have to, I would probably punish the suspects outside the system, to put it gently. Police are professionals precisely because we need enforcers who can deal with precisely these situations without brutalizing anyone, even if the suspect wants to be brutalized.
I dunno. Maybe arrest him, bring him to the station, charge him with disorderly conduct, and tell him that if he causes trouble like that again, he's gonna spend a few days in jail? I know, it's a little bit "out there," but I really think this strategy could work.
Formerly GNU/Anonymous Coward. This message has been determined to cause cancer in laboratory animals.
I read a post above that claimed the student involved loved to make trouble. And what I saw from the video would lead me to believe that is likely true. However it shows just how primitive the police force at the scene was. They were led into "abusing" the student and took it hook line and sinker. You could classify the person as mentally ill by definition he obviously was making bad choices that would only further his situation. Yet the tough pigs thought force would fix the problem. I blame both sides, a disruptive irrational person got the best of the police force. There was no need to injure him; a professional team would have kept him subdued and safe from escalating the situation and waited for time to let him calm down until he could quietly leave the area. Instead they strutted their big balls and made the situation worse. If they don't have training in this then I really do wonder if the next time I'm upset and the cops show up I'll take a few slugs for behaving badly. What makes me blame the police is their unprofessional handling of the situation. They're supposed to be "peace officers" but obviously they chose to turn this into an aggressive situation in which the hammer won. From the moment they arrived, many of them, they had physical superiority, there was no weapon, there was a person that wouldn't stand up. God forbid they seek other options instead of harming the individual to cement their power over them.
For those that don't know, this is very far from unordinary. I've hung with "bad" people and the police act like this all the time. They have the gun, they have the badge, in court they are a credible witness. Go up against them and you WILL LOSE without proof. Even with proof you are unlikely to win unless they kick the shit out of you while you stay absolutely motionless, even then you better hope your arm didn't move more than 2 inches cuz if it did you were attempting to violently assault an officer. I am exxagerating a bit but if you think this is uncharacterstic of police behavior you are ignorant (meaning that you just don't know).
Officers obviously need more training on how to handle a non dangerous situation. This comes up every time Joe Blow Black man with a rake is capped. They need to understand that having a gun, having control, does not mean using it to expedite the situation. If they have to spend 2 hours trying to calm the man down so be it. That's what they are payed to do, to keep everyone safe. Force should only be applied when NECCESSARY, and that is the downfall of this whole situation.
First, we're not catching anything before the video, which firsthand accounts make it seem like the guy should be tasered.
Based on what.
Second, they repeatedly warned him before tasing him each time.
Irrelevant. They had no business tasering a handcuffed suspect for being uncooperative.
Third, according to firsthand accounts and the story, he was provoking the crowd.
Watch the video. He wasn't doing anything more than screaming "here's your Patriot Act, here's your fucking abuse of power."
Sure, it looks like the cops overreacted, but not to the extent that you're saying.
Yes, they did, and they belong in jail for assault.
Again and again, the police apologists come out in droves saying "Oh, but you don't know how HARD it is being a cop!" and "The guy was definitely asking for it!" I'm just going to say what I said last time this came up (original post: http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=192848&cid =15830849) Full text:
The perfect reply to this argument (which comes up every time someone mentions that most cops are assholes) is this: a McDonald's employee has more accountability than a cop does. As a 16 year old burger-flipper, if a customer acts like a complete asshole--even going so far as to yelling and cussing you out--you are NOT allowed to verbally abuse the customer in return in any way, shape or form. At most you can ask him/her to leave the building, that's it.
Years ago, I worked at McDonald's for four months and a very good friend of mine was punched in the face. Through a plate glass window. A woman tried to order at the pickup window, was told she needed to drive around again, so she punched through the drive-through window, hitting my friend in the face. If she (my friend) had hit her back, there's not a doubt in my mind that she would have lost her job. Instead, she walked away calmly and called her supervisor and the police.
Now, I'm not implying that the police shouldn't use force when necessary. I'm also not denying that they're human too, that it's a nasty, dirty job and I'm sure it's really rough on them. But you know what? Working at McDonald's is in many was rougher (if you doubt this, I could tell you some more horror stories... absolutely the worst 4 months of my life, period.), and yet their workers are held to a much higher standard than the police. Why is that? Why do so many of us make allowances for the police to exercise HUGE leaps of personal discretion, to bend the law whenever it suits them? It's a tough job, but they chose it and we shouldn't let them bend the rules (or ignore them) whenever they feel like it. I saw a TON of asshole customers at McDonalds, yet I didn't say a foul word to any of them. I didn't spit in their food either (no one did--they would've been fired on the spot.) I did my job as professionally as I could, regardless of how shitty I was treated.
And I was a fucking fry cook!
Please please please please PLEASE tell me we can hold our police officers up to the same standards as our burger flippers.
I agree with you that the guy was most likely being a jackass, and should have been forcefully removed by the premises. I was just pointing out, as you have, that there are far more civilized ways to go about it.
A lot of people are making the point that, "He was just begging for an ass kicking." Quite possibly true. However, it is not law enforcement's role to provide him one. The only, and I mean _ONLY_ time law enforcement is justified in physically attacking (as opposed to restraining) someone is when they pose a danger to themselves or those around them. Then they are to use the minimum amount of force necessary to subdue and restrain the person. Tasers are not tools of expediency.
Formerly GNU/Anonymous Coward. This message has been determined to cause cancer in laboratory animals.
Sorry, but I think the term "Philosophy student" in the summary says it all.
Keep in mind, that "I like to find the most difficult solutions to the simplest of problems" and "he's the kind of guy that loves to make trouble" are not the same thing as being a violent person. In fact, this is exactly the kind of mindset you'd expect from a philosophy major with an interest in the philosophy of non-violent resistance and individual rights.
A real criminal doesn't refuse to show ID and stand his ground with the cops, they would get the hell out of there before it escalates. Making a scene like that is exactly the kind of thing a libertarian with an attitude or a leftie into protest politics does. Remember that guy who went to the Supreme Court over not showing cops his drivers licence? I bet this guy also had his ID in his pocket, he just wanted to make a point about requiring it.
That "he urged others to join his resistance and a crowd began to gather" (from the ABC story) sounds like he was trying to make a political point. That he knew to "fall limp to the floor" also seems to indicate he was at least aware of non-violent protest tactics. His middle eastern ethnicity and Bahai faith probably make him extra-sensitive to issues of profiling and discrimination, too.
That he was being a self-righteous asshole is just another indication that he's not a criminal and is instead an intellectual who was expecting an argument or debate - instead, he got some muscle-bound cop who thought insolence and disobedience had to be met by force.
So congratulations, Campus Cops - you found the least dangerous, most-likely-to-sue-over-civil-rights student in the library and tasered him in front of a crowd with cameras. Great job.
Wow... Every time someone mentions here something about ID cards, everybody is raising the Holly Privacy Bible. Today, A guy which has done nothing but wanting to keep his privacy is beaten by the police and you say it's a good thing ?
Terrorism is, you know, about, uh, terror I think. It seems its working with you. By saying you are happy that this guy got tasered, you are entering their game. You acknowledge that you are afraid of them. And beside, now they can tell: "See, Americans are not respecting the rights they are promoting".
What sig ?
Sure that's all true, but for which of those points would he deserved to be shocked the fuck out of five times?
Well, after getting stunned do you really think you got good control of your legs? If they wanted they could have just carried him out of the building without having to zap him even once, but what's the fun in that.
You should watch the video, it's pretty clear from that that he didn't deserve to be tased, or at least didn't deserve to be tased over and over again.
Background (not in the video): After 11 you have to have a Bruincard. He didn't have his and was told to leave by a CSO. When he didn't leave immediately, they called campus police.
From what you can see/hear, the first contact with the security comes when they grab his arm - according to other students, he was leaving, having been told by a CSO that he had to - and he tells them to "get off". At this point they tase him to the ground. When he's finished screaming in pain, you can't see what's happening, but it sounds like they've dragged him to the door. There are a couple of security guards there at this point. They tell him to get up. He doesn't, instead trying to explain that he was trying to leave, and begging them not to tase him again. It's been pointed out that due to the effects of the taser he may not physically have been able to stand at this stage. They tase him again. He still doesn't stand. They tase him again. After a while, they seem to realise that this isn't getting him on his feet. At this stage, several students have asked for their names and badge numbers. One of them was told he would be tased if he didn't shut up. The officer was holding a taser when he said this. The others were simply ignored.
Now that the student is no longer deemed to be a threat to the (at least) 3 armed police standing over him, he is handcuffed. Before being dragged out of the room, he is tased one last time.
I couldn't watch the whole video in one go, so I'm not sure where the fifth use of the taser comes in.
I'm disgusted by what I saw in the video. Seriously. The taser was their first resort against a student who was - according to the other students - cooperating. Even after using the taser to knock him down, they didn't search him for weapons, they didn't handcuff him. They just kept on tasering. Once the guy's already on the floor and surrounded, I don't understand why you would keep using weapons to hurt him.
According to the article, the taser is used by officers when there is "a potential for injury to the officer(s) or others" or a "potential risk of serious injury to the individual being controlled." He was on the floor, shouting that he was trying to leave. He was clearly no threat to anyone, least of all himself. And the officers obviously knew that they were in the wrong, since they threatened witnesses with violence to try to buy their silence.
To me it's obvious what should happen. Every one of these officers should be immediately fired while a criminal case is prepared for torturing a helpless young man. They should go to jail under federal anti-torture law, which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years.
Can the last one out of the free world please turn off the lights?
You sir, are a shining example of what police SHOULD be. I hope the vast majority are like you.
I have talked to a few police officers I know about this incident (naturally everyone knows about and is talking about it) and while they agree with you, nobody went as far as saying the officers should be fired. I suspect there is still a little of "we protect our own, no matter what" there. One alarmingly raised the point that the proliferation of camera phones is damaging law enforcement and something needs to be done about that...
Finkployd