Posted on 11/16/2006 4:57:59 AM PST by radar101
UCPD officers shot a student several times with a Taser inside the Powell Library CLICC computer lab late Tuesday night before taking him into custody.
No university police officers were available to comment further about the incident as of 3 a.m. Wednesday, and no Community Service Officers who were on duty at the time could be reached.
At around 11:30 p.m., CSOs asked a male student using a computer in the back of the room to leave when he was unable to produce a BruinCard during a random check. The student did not exit the building immediately.
The CSOs left, returning minutes later, and police officers arrived to escort the student out. By this time the student had begun to walk toward the door with his backpack when an officer approached him and grabbed his arm, at which point the student told the officer to let him go. A second officer then approached the student as well.
The student began to yell "get off me," repeating himself several times.
It was at this point that the officers shot the student with a Taser for the first time, causing him to fall to the floor and cry out in pain. The student also told the officers he had a medical condition.
UCPD officers confirmed that the man involved in the incident was a student, but did not give a name or any additional information about his identity.
Video shot from a student's camera phone captured the student yelling, "Here's your Patriot Act, here's your fucking abuse of power," while he struggled with the officers.
As the student was screaming, UCPD officers repeatedly told him to stand up and said "stop fighting us." The student did not stand up as the officers requested and they shot him with the Taser at least once more.
"It was the most disgusting and vile act I had ever seen in my life," said David Remesnitsky, a 2006 UCLA alumnus who witnessed the incident.
As the student and the officers were struggling, bystanders repeatedly asked the police officers to stop, and at one point officers told the gathered crowd to stand back and threatened to use a Taser on anyone who got too close.
Laila Gordy, a fourth-year economics student who was present in the library during the incident, said police officers threatened to shoot her with a Taser when she asked an officer for his name and his badge number.
Gordy was visibly upset by the incident and said other students were also disturbed.
"It's a shock that something like this can happen at UCLA," she said. "It was unnecessary what they did."
Immediately after the incident, several students began to contact local news outlets, informing them of the incident, and Remesnitsky wrote an e-mail to Interim Chancellor Norman Abrams.
So what you are saying is that their methods worked. He had decided at the point he met with a superior force that his radical ploy wasn't going to be effective so he went for the sympathy and cry for mommy lib to save him.
There are always consequenses for your actions and your speach. He needs to learn to stfu and do what he is told when he is in public. I'll bet he was one of those that fell out of a shopping cart and mommy sued the store.
The guy wasn't combative, non-compliant, or abusive until the officers grabbed him. He was, by all eyewitness accounts, leaving peaceably, albeit slower than the officers and CSO would have liked.
Have you ever heard of the "use of force continuum?" The idea is that you have a range of options available to you. From least severe to most severe, the continuum is as follows:
1. Officer presence
2. Verbal commands
3. Empty hand techniques
4. Intermediate force weapons
5. Deadly force.
The officer should use force in direct response to the threat presented, with the least amount of force that will accomplish the task at hand (in this case, having the student leave the building.)
The correct response would have been for the officers to enter the building and take up a visible position, such as by the counter (officer presence). If the guy continues to walk out the door, great! Everybody gets to go home. There was no reason to go up to Level 3 (grabbing him) and CERTAINLY no reason to go to Level 4 (tasering him) -- had they handled the situation correctly to begin with.
You didn't answer my question. You avoided it.
You said: Sorry, but if I'm walking and anyone, badge or not, grabs me by the arm, they better make sure that they don't end up with that taser in a very uncomfortable spot.
Battery is battery, badge or not.
***
I confess I don't know all the facts (just as the rest of us here don't). That said, if you don't have your required ID card, and are told by police to leave, then you leave. Failure to do so is trespass. I don't know about how reasonable the taser use was. I do recall from the recesses of my mind back in the mid-70s that Campus Police (UNC-Chapel Hill) were pretty officious and often unreasonable. If the guy had not left by the time police got back, his sauntering walk out the door would have qualified for an escort by police. I don't think in this case taking the guy's arm was a battery. The guy should have cleared out when he was told to.
If that's how you want to see it, fine.
If you have a truly abusive, noncompliant subject, there are LOTS of techniques to use that don't involve 'beating the tar' out of the subject. For instance, you can gooseneck his hand, prone him out on the ground, and then you can easily cuff him and drag him out, if need be. A baton strike to the thigh will drop most people. Sometimes, drawing your firearm will result in noncompliant suspects becoming compliant. Therea are MANY techniques, probably as many as there are officers.
My point was that this entire event could, and should, have been avoided.
You said, in part: Why are there "random" identity checks in the library anyway?
***
I think the library is for student use only. In order to monitor this, students are asked, randomly, to produce their ID cards. Sounds fair enough. How else would you determine if someone were a student?
I said nothing of the sort. He was leaving BEFORE any force was applied on either side. Therefore, force was not necessary.
Since yesterday, more information came out and it looks like the student set this up. Too bad the cops fell into his trap. Now the taxpayers will pay the student.
There still needs to be an investigation by a civilian review board with real power to see that anyone who broke the law is prosecuted and anyone who didn't is exonerated.
"There is no cop hating post on the thread at all. A few of us have questioned the actions,.."
By thread 19. How many posts now calling for the cops to be arrested for doing their jobs?
holy crap - up to 319 posts now?
You posted, in part: The CSOs left, returning minutes later, and police officers arrived to escort the student out. By this time the student had begun to walk toward the door with his backpack . . .
***
I read this as the student didn't produce ID and was asked to leave, which he did not do. Minutes later (we don't know how many, but the other cops had to come from the donut shop, so it had to take a little while) the guy has not left, nor is it clear that he was leaving, only that he had BEGUN to walk TOWARD the door. I can neither accuse nor defend the campus police without know a lot more facts than the student newspaper decided to report, but the student was in the wrong by not producing his ID (if he had it) and then not leaving immediately when told to do so by the officer who had no way of knowing if he was really a student or not, since he didn't provide his ID.
And failing to leave property when told to do so by someone in authority IS a trespass. It isn't cured by STARTING to leave later.
I've addressed your points in other posts and will be happy to discuss this with you later. But right now, I need to run to make my tee time.
Please excuse me. I'll be happy to talk later.
You are right. If the trespasser had left when he was told to. Instead he chose to resist arrest and make a scene and attempt to stir a riot.
Now as far as dragging him out of the building, that would involve a risk to the officers. Many departments do not allow officers to drag suspects as it is likely to cause permanent back and spinal injuries to the officers. So what they needed to do was to make this idiot compliant enough to walk out on his own accord or unconscious enough to be carried out on a gurney.
Now to get down to the nitty gritty and answer the question I have not seen answered on this thread, how would you have made this particular idiot compliant in this particular case?
I'll answer your question. When the CSO arrived and told me that there was a student who refused to leave the library, I get my partner and go there. We have the CSO identify the student to us. One of us takes up a position near the door, but out of the way. The other moves AROUND behind him, not AT him, to provide cover in the event of a 'situation.'
We see that he's moving towards the door. There's no reason to approach him as he is complying with the commands given by the CSO. We keep an eye on him until he leaves, which should be in just a few short seconds at that point.
We go home.
OK Mr. Federal LEO, what do you do now?
Which he was doing. He was in the process of leaving, ie, walking out. Why escalate the situation?
By the time that the officers arrived, the student had already committed misdemeanor trespassing.
I don't think he committed misdemeanor trespassing. He had broken a university rule (not having his ID card), not broken a local, state, or federal law.
Can't speak for UC-Davis specifically, but most all public university libraries are just that, public. Usually the rule is like so: anyone can use the library, but you have to have a valid student ID or non-student library card (sort of an affiliate card) to check anything out.
If I understand correctly, UC-D has a policy of doing a 100% student ID check after 11:00pm as a safety measure for their students.
So if your boss is a jerk, can you taser him/her?
Hmmmmmmm. My Boss???? Let me think about that.
Not having his ID was a violation of a school (safety and security) rule. That was not a crime. We agree on that one.
When he refused to show his ID, he was then asked (probably very politely) to leave the premises by the Campus Security officer (the person charged with enforcing school safety and security rules).
When he refused to leave the premises after being asked to leave by the Campus Security officer, he then became a trespasser. His willful refusal to leave was a misdemeanor under Penal Code section 602.1(b).
When he fell limp after the police officer touched his arm, he then violated Penal Code section 148, which is resisting arrest and interfering with an officer in the performance of his duties, a misdemeanor and possibly a felony (if, for instance, an officer would have suffered an injury attempting to bring this idiot into compliance).
So at this point you have a screaming combative criminal who is suborning a riot by attempting to get other students involved in like minded criminal behavioral conduct. He is now completely uncooperative and is making a scene, disturbing the peace (another misdemeanor), inciting a riot (a felony), attempting to solicit others to join him in the crime of interfering with an officer in the performance of his duties (a felony).
So here you are Mr. Federal LEO. What do you do now?
You've got a guy who has already committed two misdemeanors (possibly the second being a felony) in the presence of officers; who is attempting to incite a riot inside a public building and is soliciting others to commit a misdemeanor and possibly a felony.
It's your call. How do you get this idiot to be compliant at this point.
Are you not now at level 4?
When he refused to show his ID, he was then asked (probably very politely) to leave the premises by the Campus Security officer (the person charged with enforcing school safety and security rules).
When he refused to leave the premises after being asked to leave by the Campus Security officer, he then became a trespasser. His willful refusal to leave was a misdemeanor under Penal Code section 602.1(b).
I'm with you up to here, my FRiend, but this is where we part company on the issue. When the police arrived on the scene, did they intend to arrest him for misdemeanor trespassing (doubtful), or did they intend to simply remove him from the building (more likely)? If their intent was to arrest, then they botched it. If their intent was to remove him from the building, he was already doing it for them.
Sun Tzu said the best way to win a battle is to win before the battle starts. The police officers had that option, but they chose poorly.
So they get fired? Their careers are ruined because of this punk? The taxpayers pay out millions?
Sorry, but they may not have acted perfectly, but they acted legally. He was combative. Now maybe the cops contributed to it by giving hthe jerk an opportunity to turn this little incident into a federal case, but the blame is with him and not with the officers. Unlike you and me, they were not given the opportunity to look at this situation in hindsight. They had to make decisions in real time.
There are mistakes made in every situation. When you become perfect, then you earn the right to second guess others. I suspect there are times in your LEO career where you made a mistake or two, but there weren't 50 people around with video phones and anti-cop attitudes to ensure that you lost your career over it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.