UCLA: "Show ID or get tasered"

[mvpel]

Let's not descend into deceptive hyperbole.  He was not Tasered for refusing to show ID.

He was repeatedly asked by the campus security to prove he was a student of UCLA eligible to stay in the library after 11:00pm, as opposed to a crackhead rapist who wandered in off the street to lurk at 3:00am in the women's bathroom.

He refused or was unable to prove he was a student, so he was asked to leave in accordance with the library's "students only after 11pm" policy.

He refused to leave.

The cops were called, and apparently he picked a fight with them too.

Maybe the cops violated their use of force policy if he was only passively resisting, rather than actively resisting - and there's eyewitnesses who attest to that and if that's borne out the officers involved are in deep doo-doo - but that still doesn't mean the young man was Tasered for not showing ID.

[Quantrill]

Some of the students said he was tasered "on his way out".  They say an officer grabbed the kids' arm as he was nearing the door.  Maybe the students are lying, I don't know because I wasn't there.  But there is no need for the cops to repeatedly taser this kid.  Zap him once and drag him out.  There were at least 3 cops near him at all times.  Surely 3 guys can carry one outside to the squad car???

[error]

Two guys carried off Lauren!

[KBCraig]

Let's not descend into deceptive hyperbole.  He was not Tasered for refusing to show ID.

No, he was tasered for refusing to stand up and walk, while laying face down, handcuffed behind his back, after just having been tasered.

I really don't want to watch the video again, but I will, after I get home, to make sure I get the timeline right. But until then, here's my recollection:

- Loud yelling "Don't put your hands on me!"
- (same voice) "I said I would go, just let me leave!"
- Screaming as Taser is applied.

Then the camera gets in position for a better shot for the next three applications of the Taser, which are all after the student has already been handcuffed.

Let me tell you a little secret here: if I ever used any force against someone after they were handcuffed and not offering active resistance, I would be fired, sued, and probably prosecuted -- deservedly so!

Whatever this student did that led to his being placed in handcuffs, that's the point at which all use of force must stop. There can be no justified use of force for passive resistance. If he wants to lay there and passively resist, then two officers scoop him up by the shoulders, and tote him away.

This was abuse. Those officers should be fired, and those responsible for repeated use of the Taser after he was in custody, should be prosecuted.

Kevin

[Michael Fisher]

Let me tell you a little secret here: if I ever used any force against someone after they were handcuffed and not offering active resistance, I would be fired, sued, and probably prosecuted -- deservedly so!

There's a 98% chance that police officers who violate human rights are never prosecuted for it, so why should they care?

[error]

Let me tell you a little secret here: if I ever used any force against someone after they were handcuffed and not offering active resistance, I would be fired, sued, and probably prosecuted -- deservedly so!

There's a 98% chance that police officers who violate human rights are never prosecuted for it, so why should they care?

And that needs to change. Legal protection for anyone who stops a police officer from engaging in excessive force would be a good start.

[Michael Fisher]

Let me tell you a little secret here: if I ever used any force against someone after they were handcuffed and not offering active resistance, I would be fired, sued, and probably prosecuted -- deservedly so!

There's a 98% chance that police officers who violate human rights are never prosecuted for it, so why should they care?

And that needs to change. Legal protection for anyone who stops a police officer from engaging in excessive force would be a good start.

Then another officer would just beat up that guy, too, and never get prosecuted for it.

I personally would probably have tried to jump on the victim to protect him from the police, and I would have been hit with a felony conviction and jailed for 20 years.

[KBCraig]

Let me tell you a little secret here: if I ever used any force against someone after they were handcuffed and not offering active resistance, I would be fired, sued, and probably prosecuted -- deservedly so!

There's a 98% chance that police officers who violate human rights are never prosecuted for it, so why should they care?

I won't speak to percentages, but I can tell you that every officer knows the risks, and we've had a goodly number of former LEOs spend time here for deprivation of rights under color of law. Some were for excessive force that was no worse than what was seen here.

We even had a former Deputy U.S. Marshal, sentenced to 37 months because of a beating that he didn't participate in, didn't know about until months later, and wasn't even in the same city when it happened. (Long story... I'll tell it if anyone cares.)

We've got three former LEOs here right now, including one who worked for our agency. Two of them were corruption cases, and the third was an abuse case.

So yeah... cops do go to prison.

Kevin

[error]

We even had a former Deputy U.S. Marshal, sentenced to 37 months because of a beating that he didn't participate in, didn't know about until months later, and wasn't even in the same city when it happened. (Long story... I'll tell it if anyone cares.)

This I gotta hear.

[mvpel]

Here's the UCPD Taser policy manual:

http://www.ucpd.ucla.edu/ucpd/zippdf/2006/Taser_Policies.pdf

301.24 PAIN COMPLIANCE TECHNIQUES
Pain compliance techniques may be very effective in controlling a passive or actively resisting individual. Officers may only apply those pain compliance techniques for which the officer has received Departmentally approved training and only when the officer reasonably believes that the use of such a technique appears necessary to further a legitimate law enforcement purpose. Officers utilizing any pain compliance technique should consider the totality of the circumstance including, but not limited to:
(a) The potential for injury to the officer(s) or others if the technique is not used,
(b) The potential risk of serious injury to the individual being controlled,
(c) The degree to which the pain compliance technique may be controlled in application according to the level of resistance,
(d) The nature of the offense involved,
(e) The level of resistance of the individual(s) involved,
(f) The need for prompt resolution of the situation,
(g) If time permits (e.g. passive demonstrators), other reasonable alternatives.
The application of any pain compliance technique shall be discontinued once the officer determines that full compliance has been achieved.

=====

4) GENERAL
Although not absolutely prohibited, officers should give additional consideration to the unique circumstances involved prior to applying the Taser to any of the following individuals: .
A) Pregnant females;
B) Elderly individuals or obvious juveniles;
C) Individuals who are handcuffed or otherwise restrained;
D) Individuals who have been recently sprayed with alcohol based Pepper
Spray or who are otherwise in close proximity to any combustible material;
E) Individuals whose position or activity may result in collateral injury (e.g.
falls from significant heights, operating vehicles, etc.)

6) CRITERIA FOR USE - DRIVE STUN
Authorized personnel may use a Taser in a drive stun capacity, as a pain compliance technique, in the following situations.
A) To eliminate physical resistance from an arrestee in accomplishing an
arrest or physical search.

[mvpel]

The LawDog Files: Meditations on Police Brutality

This little scene is an example of the unintended consequences of the "Californization" of the police in this country. It is what happens when -- due to fear of lawsuits, fear of bad media coverage, or whatever -- your officers are afraid to put their hands on someone.

During every arrest there are two separate periods of time. The first, which always happens, is the "talking phase". This is when you speak to the arrestee. It is during this time that you talk to him, negotiate with him, make deals or whatever. This is usually all that is required to make an arrest.

The second phase is the "laying on of hands" phase. This is when talking to the subject fails. This is when you snatch ahold of the arrestee, OC him, taser him, beat the everloving whey out of him, whatever is necessary to gain control of the situation.

This doesn't happen with all arrests -- but, during the "laying on of hands" the talking part is over and done. There is no negotiation, making deals, or asking for co-operation once the talking has failed.

This didn't happen during the California arrest.

[Rocketman]

If the account relayed by Olbermann was accurate, this guy was sitting at a computer when the cops walked over to him and asked to see his ID.  The guy felt he was being profiled, and suggested that the cops should ask for ID's from other students as well.  I don't blame him one bit. 

Who wants to live in a world where minorities routinely have to show ID's and "regular Americans" don't?  I think we have to go back to that quaint "presumption of innocence" concept that seems to have been utterly lost since 9-11.

[mvpel]

If the account relayed by Olbermann was accurate, this guy was sitting at a computer when the cops walked over to him and asked to see his ID.  The guy felt he was being profiled, and suggested that the cops should ask for ID's from other students as well.  I don't blame him one bit.

It's a well-known, clearly understood policy that only students are allowed in that library after 11:00pm.  Perhaps the fellow should get the racial chip off his shoulder and abide by the rules instead of picking a fight that he is guaranteed to lose in the near term.  How did he know that they hadn't asked for student IDs from other people in the library while enforcing the 11:00pm rule?  Was he watching them the whole time?  If so, why was he in the library watching the community service officers, instead of studying?

[KBCraig]

We even had a former Deputy U.S. Marshal, sentenced to 37 months because of a beating that he didn't participate in, didn't know about until months later, and wasn't even in the same city when it happened. (Long story... I'll tell it if anyone cares.)

This I gotta hear.

Since you asked... 

It's been a number of years. I think the DUSM's name was Jerry Thornton, but don't hold me to that. He was assigned to the USMS office in Lawton, Oklahoma.

The story: A (female) Deputy U.S. Marshall in Seattle (I think... it was in the Pacific NW), and her roommate, were burgled, assaulted, tied up with phone cord, beaten, sexually molested, and her duty weapon, badge, and government car were stolen. The do-bad is caught, in the car, with the gun, badge, credentials, and property from the DUSM's apartment.

The evidence, as they say, was overwhelming.

The U.S. Marshals Service and the Bureau of Prisons jointly operate JPATS, which has its own hub in Will Rogers Airport in Oklahoma City. The aforementioned miscreant was being transported to a new, "safer" zone, for a fair trial.

Allegedly, some DUSMs from the assaulted gal's office call ahead to OKC, to let them know that this certain disadvantaged youth will be arriving on a JPATS flight, and he might need a welcoming committee.

Three or four DUSMs and one or two BOP officers move all the other prisoners off the plane. And then they proceed to "welcome" the subject in question, who winds up looking a lot like he fell down the stairs.

He resisted, fought back, and that was their story and they were sticking to it. Normal investigations follow, with no negative findings.

Except, one of the investigators doesn't buy the story. One of the DUSMs who participated in the thumpin' was a rookie, and was scared. Months later, as follow-ups are made, he approaches the Lawton DUSM, tells him they may have gotten a little rough with a prisoner, and basically confesses his role. (Remember: the Lawton DUSM was not present at the welcoming party, and was hearing about it for the first time months after the fact.) The Lawton guy tells him that if he wants to keep his job, to stick with the story he told.

Well, someone eventually told the truth, and the whole bunch got prosecuted. The Oklahoma City Supervisory DUSM, who knew of the plan and and helped arrange it, got 30 months. The fellows who participated were sentenced from 12 to 24 months. And our guy in question was convicted of obstructing justice, conspiracy to deprive rights, aiding & abetting, misprision of a felony, and waking up on the wrong side of the bed, and wound up getting 37 months. Six months before he was eligible to retire, at that.

That's not just his version of events; that's from reading his file.

Kevin

[KBCraig]

I don't know what Olbermann's report said, but multiple accounts said the student had his backpack on and was headed out the door when he was stopped.

The UCLA PD guidelines don't justify use of the Taser in this situation.

Kevin