As you can see, a taser, and other methods are authorized for static resistance. If the UCLA officers are under a similar policy, then they were in the right. The chart comes from http://www.cpso.pdx.edu/html/forcepolicy.htm.
Posted on 11/16/2006 8:23:50 PM PST by Arec Barrwin
Mostafa Tabatabainejad, 23, was tasered after he refused to provide ID and would not leave. He starts screaming
"DON"T TOUCH ME! Don't touch-zzzzzzzzzzzt!" "Here's your Patriot Act! Here's your-zzzzzzzzzzt!"
Lesson #1: When the police ask you to do something, do it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5g7zlJx9u2E
AKA: Americas newest multi-millionaire (after the litigation)
Officers having friendly witnesses on a college campus?
Aint gonna happen.
They didn't taser him because he's Muslim, they tasered him because most campus police are a-holes.
As you can see, a taser, and other methods are authorized for static resistance. If the UCLA officers are under a similar policy, then they were in the right. The chart comes from http://www.cpso.pdx.edu/html/forcepolicy.htm.
So you're saying it's lawful for the police to "drive-stun" a subject in handcuffs? Not so! That's no different from saying it's lawful for a subject to be billyclubbed while in handcuffs.
Once a subject is in handcuffs the police have no right whasoever to inflict any pain on him. They need to transport him where they need him to go -- that's it. And in this case all they needed to do was drag him off library premises and into a patrol car.
To contend, as you do, that they're justified in tasering him because they didn't want to bang up his knees by dragging him is more patent nonsense. That's like saying it's ok to billyclub him in the head because you want to protect his shins. You're basically saying that because the taser leaves no visible mark in "drive-stun" mode, the police can sneak in a little pain if they're in the mood on a subject who's already in handcuffs.
Again, the taser is a use of force designed to immobilize a subject before he's handcuffed. Once he's in custody the police have no legal right to inflict any pain at all.
Moonman, the kid was in handcuffs! In custody! Your chart does not apply to him at all!
The chart applies. A person in handcuffs can still resist, actively or statically. Have a longer look at the chart.
Your misreading your own chart....nowhere does it apply to a subject already in custody.
I suggest you contact your local law enforcement and find out their policy. Different jurisdictions have different rules.
Drive-stunning a hand-cuffed suspect who is refusing to walk may in fact be SOP in your jurisdiction. Dragging/carrying a concious suspect who may lash out at any time may be considered at higher risk of injury to the officers and the suspect than continued aplication of pain compliance until the suspect walks under his own power voluntarily.
Tasers are no longer just for immobilization purposes. Police practices evolve with the technology. Somewhere, there are guys in green shades crunching the numbers on the actuarial tables, the disability claims, the lawsuit payouts, etc. Their verdict is to adopt procedures that minimize physical contact between officers and suspects. Stune their beeber is replacing the baton.
Now you're making up something not even on the chart. A person in cuffs can still resist.
The purpose of the chart is to guide officers in how to place a subject in custody, not what to do with him after he's there.
Lick much boots lately? How bout I tase you a few times and command you to get up?
Kindly point out where you see that.
If my kid was a stalinist moonbat who'd been zapped by campus PD, I'd get to his school asap and taser his sorry ass again myself!
Might even soak him with a bucket of water first, to make the experience even more 'interesting' for him.
You had better have the video running when they knock on the door because unless you record the initial exchange, you can bet the cops will tell the jury that you voluntarily allowed them into your house, and there goes your retirement fund.
bookmark
Where are you getting this stuff? It's absurd! The police carry hulking 200 lb men to patrol cars on a daily basis. That's an important part of their training. It has long been established that handcuffs constitute "in custody" for the very good reason that no matter how big and strong you are, if your hands are cuffed behind your back you can't effectively fight your way out of a paper bag, no matter how much you "lash out." If kicking becomes an issue, legs restraints can be applied.
This stuff is handled every day in every police department in the country. "Drive-stunning" a handcuffed subject is an excessive use of force, and if it's "SOP" in any department, the law needs to be changed in that jurisdiction to rectify an unconscionable escalation of police powers.
There are several lessons to this episode. As a cop...after you taser a dude...you get the cuffs on and remove him immedately from the affected area. You don't invite an audience who watches and decides who is right or wrong. You also use the taser only when a threat is established...the kid wasn't cooperative...but certainly not a threat...and you could easily overpower him to use the cuffs.
My guess is that this act by the cops will create 1,000 students there to be anti-cop and request a taser experience...as silly as it sounds. In Alabama...we'd have pulled the bully-club out...whacked the guy twice...cuffed him and tossed into the drunk tank for 8 hours. But then...this wasn't Alabama.
No excuse for this. Several eyewitnesses have come forward with their filmed evidence. Those campus policemen will be looking for new jobs very soon and the student will be given a large settlement.
Watched the whole thing. Looks like Police incompetance to me. They took a simple trespassing event and turned it into a potential riot where their lives could have been threatened.
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.