Posted on 11/16/2006 8:23:50 PM PST by Arec Barrwin
The extract of the second case doesn't state he was cuffed, but he was, you'll have to accept my word on that or go look up the case.
Most department use of force policies do not specifically allow or prohibit the use of a baton on a cuffed suspect either. There are legal reasons for not getting too specific in a written use of force policy.
The actual question is "Should pain compliance methods be allowed on either actively or passively resisting persons who are already cuffed"? Why or why not. How may personal injury risks must officers take in order to physically control a restrained but resisting individual.
Ask your LE friends where the taser is on their department force continuum and whether it is above or below the baton. Would you rather be hit by a baton or a taser? Why? What are the injury rate comparisons between the baton and the taser?
Did you know that after the city of Miami issued tasers to all officers they had their first year of ZERO officer shootings after average 2-3 for the previous 14 years?
By the way, why would it be okay to tase a restrained but violent psychotic, but not a restrained but violent non-psychotic person? What difference should mental illness make in the use of force, if any? If a shock would get the attention of a psychotic would it not work even better on the non-psychotic to get them under control?
You have to make them comply. This fool was out there to be a martyr, and he was there to push the buttons. He pushed 'em, so he shouldn't complain with the results.
I advised both of my children before they went off on a life of their own, in this case away to undergraduate studies, that when they encountered authority under the cover of uniform, the process was first comply and then communicate starting with "Yes sir".
One listened and one didn't. The one who didn't, an amateur attorney with sophomoric knowledge and vibrato, first found himself on the ground and then, 12 hours latter, asking a friend to pick him up from the local lockup and then, 6 weeks later, explaining to a Superior Court judge why he had acted so recklessly.
Although not in attendance, the video reminded me of what must have transpired when a foolish, intoxicated, college freshman accused a local police officer of trespass while that officer was trying to disperse a rowdy group of student drunks from the interior court yard of a large apartment complex in Isla Vista, CA.
I might add that two years later, that same young man, stopped just at dusk by a traffic officer in a sister jurisdiction for an inoperative tail light was given a rare courtesy ride to the nearest public transportation after his vehicle was impounded because the officer determined that every document (driver license, vehicle registration and proof of insurance) associated with legally operating a motor vehicle on the streets of California was not in order. Again, weeks and hundreds of dollars were involved in rectifying the neglect of detail, but the young man did get a courtesy ride because he had learned a valuable lesson and began the process that evening with "Yes ma'am."
You suffer from a strange sense of paranoia. Exactly how much experience have you had with cops violating the law and lying in court?
Many, many, many.
You are right, of course. I was generalizing--each situation presents its own unique set of challenges and calls for the officer's best judgment at that time. I have not watched the video and didn't mean to imply that these officers didn't use their best judgment. What bothers me is that there are way too many here on Free Republic whose reaction to any story such as this is always, "Taze the crap out of him!". Sometimes that's the best way to go, sometimes not.
Really? Are you a lawyer or a habitual lawbreaker? Could you detail one?
I humbly submit to all and sundry. Teach 'em right. The old British Army maxim. "Obey orders, complain afterward". So easy. We have fools smart mouthing the American border officers- rarely tis' true.
All they needed to do was say- "Yes Officer, I have my citizenship with me....." etc. No, they got stupid. Just a little brisk words and told "return immediately to Canada".
It is all so darn easy.
The experts were burly middle-aged men ,sitting having coffee. They knew how to deal with recalcitrant punks in the mall where I worked. After the arrests were over
None ever assisted. Laughs
I can envisage certain scenarios where a taser might be used on an already restrained subject experiencing a servere, prolonged psychotic episode, if the effect of the taser helped to quell violent thrashing. The act would be in the subject's interest, in that case, since, by definition, he's out of his mind and requires treatment to become stable and end the episode. I'm not an expert, and quite possibly trained mental health professionals would dispute the efficacy of such an action. But to me it seems that in certain circumstances it might be reasonable, effective and ethical.
But violent, non-psychotic, already restrained subjects are another matter altogether. They're not out of their minds, they're just pissed. Their ability to sustain violent thrashing is orders of magnitude less than that of a mental patient, their ability to understand and communicate, orders of magnitude greater. They need to be restrained, but they don't need to be shocked. Eventually, they'll tire themselves out.
The police are not in the business of inflicting pain on anyone. They have the power of arrest, and important power, and they're sworn to exercise it professionally and judiciously. A restrained subject cannot harm a properly trained police officer, and a properly trained police officer should never consider it his duty or right to harm a restrained subject.
He was studying, the rent-a-cops asked for his ID, he refused, they started tasering him. Also, he has dark skin. That's what you have to defend.
Yet they are allowed to use pain compliance techniques to enforce order and arrest suspects. They do it every day, it may not be their "business", but it is a tool they use.
A restrained subject cannot harm a properly trained police officer
This is demonstrably false. Officers have been killed by restrained individuals. Officers are frequently injured by flailing or jack-knifing "restrained" persons and of course, restrained persons have been injured and or died while in restraints.
The FBI and many other agencies collect and study these When this punk and his lawyer get into court they will be faced with reams of studies and experts to show why the taser represents a lower level use of force than other methods like the baton or a choke hold and is therefore reasonable.
I think the police were acting illegally in this matter.
1. I don't even think it was legal for the police to demand ID from this kid. They can legally ask for ID but that in no way obligates him to show ID. To the best of my knowledge, California has no 'Stop and Identify' laws.
2. Is it even legal for them to do ID checks sweeps like this? They allow them to check everyone's IDs at certain locations but those are more the exception than the rule. On what basis did they have for engaging in such a sweep?
3. Did they even have the legal authority to order this kid to leave? I don't think they had the authority to even ask for the kids ID, let alone kick him out for not showing it to them.
4. Failure to obey a police order isn't necessarily illegal anyways. Police are limited in what they can legally do. They are police, there for our protection. They are not our overseers or drill instructors. You are under absolutely NO legal obligation to assist in police efforts to arrest you. If they tell you to stand, you don't have to do anything. Your not allowed to resist but resistence and noncompliance are two entirely different things.
You are terribly misinformed on this story.
The student was asked by the College Security Officer for ID as part of their established library rules for late night users. He refused to show ID and then to leave as requested. The CSO then went and got the University police who also asked for ID, were refused and then the punk went limp in classic passive resistance mode when the officers tried to escort him out per University rules and their legal authority to eject trespassers (refusing to leave made it trespass).
In this instance the cops where not abusing their authority but enforcing University rules and the law.
There is quite a bit of disagreement about whether he was refusing to leave or not. According to some of the accounts I have seen, this guy was leaving. I question whether they even have the legal authority to kick this guy out. It is state property, he is legally allowed to be in there. The security guard works for the state guarding state property so he must follow their laws.
The guy was under absolutely no legal obligation to present his ID to the police. I don't know the details of California law in this matter but in Iowa where I'm from, the only time I'm required to show ID is when I'm operating a vehicle. Otherwise it is completely legal to refuse to show the police your ID. I do know California doesn't have a law requiring everyone must present their ID.
Where in the hell does removing a nonviolent individual ever require the use of a taser? If he simply goes limp, then drag him out. This use of the taser is done for one purpose and that is to inflict pain upon people. why do you need to tase someone 5 times? He wasn't resisting. He wasn't fighting. He simply wasn't assisting. There is also no legal obligation to assist in your own arrest.
Why did the police also threaten to tase students who demanded names and badge numbers. THe police are required by law to give that information whenever they are asked. Instead, the threatened the students. That indicates quite a bit. It indicates a certain mindset.
I might not know the specifics about this incident but I do know something about our rights with the police. If this kid knew his rights he might have behaved more intelligently but for the most part, the police as far as I can tell was entirely in the wrong. They might be able to get this kid for some petty offense but they can also get the police for a lot more. I hope there are several campus cops on the unemployment line pretty soon. People like them should not have positions of authority.
It is not a public library, it is a University library and they have rules. The police were removing him at the request of the library because he refused to follow library rules, one of which is produce University student ID for late night use or leave.
The students sign legal contracts agreeing to abide by university rules when they enroll. The library security officer had every right to have him forcibly removed when he refused to produce his ID.
There are all types of state property that have restricted public use. Just because it is public property does not give every citizen unfettered use.
I would take the media accounts of alleged witness that he was leaving with a grain of salt, IMO. He had plenty of time to leave in the period when the CSO left to call the UCPD and the time they took to arrive.
You might want to familiarize yourself with protestor/agitator tactics because this young man's behavior pretty much follows the textbook for being an agent provocateur.
BTW the campus police are CHP, not rent-a-cops.
Views from people claiming to be witnesses say he deliberately provoked trouble. Some even went as far as to say it was a "set up". Anarchy may be the opiate of left wing intellectuals. (laughs).
The authorities should sue him.
Just because the library is "state property" does not mean anybody has a right to be there at any time and that rules can never be made to control who uses it. If that were the case I'd be setting up housekeeping in the governor's mansion.
Public libraries have been wrestling with this issue for some time. The homeless squat in libraries, dragging all their earthly possessions with them, sleeping at study tables, bathing in the restrooms, doing their laundry in the lavatories, etc. Courts have restricted the use of libraries as residences. Most libraries now protect themselves by having clearly defined and communicated rules and consequences.
University libraries are even more restrictive. They are not public libraries and even though they are part of state institutions they do not serve the general public. They serve the students, faculty, and staff.
The university should expel him. He's a senior, it would definitely crimp his plans for graduation.
"Anarchy may be the opiate of left wing intellectuals"
Yes, and the shallow gits think they are such heroic figures fighting against tyranny and they haven't a clue as to the difference between authority and tyranny.
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.