Financial Aid Podcast Weekly Internet Radio Show - Latest Comments in The power of ubiquitous media - UCLA Police on YouTube

Re: The power of ubiquitous media - UCLA Police on YouTube

Matt Craven — Thu, 23 Nov 2006 14:01:46 -0000

Thirdly, -and this next comment doesn’t necessarily apply to you as I don’t know your position on this issue- but I want to address it because I come across this defense of violent police force all the time.

I have both supported the use of force in situations where the community as a whole came out against it - and have been opposed to the use of force at times when it has been used. If that makes sense.

The thing to remember that hindsight is 20/20 - officers only know what they know at the time of the incident - and sometimes what might seem wrong and illegal after the fact may indeed be legal at the time that it happened.

This is why the complete context of the situation is important - and not just what we see on the video - we need to know the whole story.

There's a great set of videos on youtube that illustrate this point. One of the videos makes a police shooting look like an unjustified use of deadly force - but the second video angle from the other squad car shows what really happened - and what the first video didn't show - making the shooting a clean and proper use of force.

Have a great thanksgiving -
Matt

Re: The power of ubiquitous media - UCLA Police on YouTube

Ania — Thu, 23 Nov 2006 04:10:46 -0000

Matt,

Granted that situations exist in which simply handcuffing a subject nevertheless fails to prevent him or her from violently attacking an officer. Does that fact by default justify preemptively tasering a subject repeatedly simply because the student 'goes limp' when the officers try to escort him out? Once again, I have a hard time imagining a proper justification for repeated tasering when the subject is merely demonstrating a non-violent, albeit annoying, resistance to police.

Secondly, your remarks about the effects of the taser gun support my argument that the taser was improperly used. You claim above, "Because once the taser is turned off, the pain fades immediately, the an individual can move relatively quickly after that. It is not a permanent or long-lasting effect." Given that the effects of taserering don't actually incapacitate the subject for a significant amount of time, how is this supposed to ensure the officers involved a non-violent compliance from the subject? Even if I grant you that the first tasering was justified (which I don't) I do not see how the repeated use of force against the subject serve any purpose other than to provoke him into a rage and consequently a violent retaliation. The officer responsible for handling the taser at the scene certainly doesn't have a clean record for good judgment: http://blogging.la/archives...

Thirdly, -and this next comment doesn't necessarily apply to you as I don't know your position on this issue- but I want to address it because I come across this defense of violent police force all the time. Having been born in a country in which the brutal use of police force against civilians was common practice I consequently know how easy it is for a good system to become corrupt. I therefore cringe at the thought that we should by default trust in the good judgment of the individual members of a police department here simply because the group as a whole aims to apply the law (which is fallible and often unjust). Just because someone carries a badge does not by fiat ensure that he or she has good judgment while handling suspects in often stressful and difficult situations. This I'm sure sounds profoundly mundane to say, yet I routinely meet people who practice this blind faith. On a much smaller scale, I see on a daily basis how aggressive security guards can be with what little authority they have (my job takes me into courthouses all day). Having the power to legally use a baton or gun of any type can provoke the worst kind of behavior in the beholders and so I am extra weary of many of those with the most license to use them.

Finally, I'd like to give most police officers a huge amount of credit for the exceptional job that they do. Certainly not everyone is capable of putting themselves literally and often in the line of fire (certainly not myself) and nevertheless continually carry themselves professionally with good judgment and humility. I make a perfect case out of myself as someone who most likely would not have great judgment in a potentially dangerous situation and hence I actively take responsibilit for that by not going out and doing something inappropriate for me, like joining the police force. The fact that most police officers do not abuse their powers even tho many civillians abuse theirs speaks to the amazing capacity the police force has to do good in the world. Tasering an uncooperative student studying in the library, however, does not fit into the above category. It is just as important to credit those who do their jobs right as it is to criticize those who don't.

Re: The power of ubiquitous media - UCLA Police on YouTube

Dan — Wed, 22 Nov 2006 14:56:56 -0000

Here is something I want every person to do that reads this. Scan through and read about 20 or so postings on this page. Of all the postings, whose tone is logical, objective and rational? Read the posts by Matt Craven.

I am not trying to justify anything, who I am to say what the cop did was right or wrong, but this is not a racial issue. As a hispanic UCLA student, I have had opportunities to create situations like this. I am a forgetful person and last year I did forget my student ID when I went to the Powell to pull an all-nighter. I think it was about 11:30pm or so, when the CSO (Community Service Officers) came around to check ID's. First of all, they never target just one student. I have witness this checks upwards of fifty times. When the CSO came to check mine, I was politely asked to leave, and from a distance, he watched me walk out the door. Was I targeted because of my race? Answer this question to answer the previous: Was I the only person asked to show proof of being a student? This guy was trying to make a point right off the bat. In a statement released by his lawyer a few days ago, it states that he refused to show his ID because he felt he was being targeted because he was a persian male. Does that not clearly state his intent in the whole incident? He was trying to make a point, cause a scene, and provoke the enforcement officers. Once again, I want to point out that I am not saying I approve or dissaprove of the actions the UCPD took, I am trying to take a neutral stance.

All of you people screaming racism and asking for this cops head, get off your high horse and be rational. When developing opinions about situations like this, be objective. Bringing emotions and other agendas into this could lead me to the conclusion that the cop should have used his taser ten times as much. Obviously, I am not saying that, but the irrationality that leads to that conclusion goes both ways. Too bad my devil's advocate stance isnt the popular opinion or there would be a hundred posts on this page supporting it.

People, just please be objective and rational. You owe it to yourself and those who read your material.

Re: The power of ubiquitous media - UCLA Police on YouTube

Joanna — Wed, 22 Nov 2006 00:11:28 -0000

This is rather excessive under any point of view. Whether or not the kid was resisting arrest, the police should have known better than to make a scene. There were three of them, couldn't they have just dragged him out instead of tazering him repeatedly? It would have been the most logical thing to do to just drag him out kicking and screaming after the first tazering and there wouldn't have been a six minute video on YouTube about police brutality! Or if so, it wouldn't have been as long or upsetting to people. There were a million ways this could have gone down. It was a stupid move on the police's part to make this worse by fighting with the kid in front of the students.

Re: The power of ubiquitous media - UCLA Police on YouTube

Matt Craven — Tue, 21 Nov 2006 02:48:58 -0000

I have a very hard time seeing how an already handcuffed guy -who already insisted to police on leaving the premises - is justifiably tasered over and over again.

I watched a guy who was properly handcuffed get up and proceed to seriously injure an officer by striking him with his head repeatedly. The officer's skull was cracked and since suffers seizures regularly. He can no longer work on the street and works now as a communications officer.

Just because a person is handcuffed does not make them any less of a threat.

Secondly, since tasers are meant to incapacitate suspects, why do the officers repeatedly demand the guy stand up after having used a taser on him? This makes no sense to me and in fact seems to undermine the very point of a taser gun.

Because once the taser is turned off, the pain fades immediately, the an individual can move relatively quickly after that. It is not a permanent or long-lasting effect.

Matt

Re: The power of ubiquitous media - UCLA Police on YouTube

Ania — Mon, 20 Nov 2006 19:48:18 -0000

Matt,

I'm not a police officer, so I can't possibly know the extent to which you endanger yourselves for the sake of duty - but I imagine that the extent to which you do is by no means a small feat. That being said, one thing that we do know from the video is that the young man was already handcuffed upon recieving multiple blows with the taser gun. Altho I understand that it is in the police officer's interest of safety to manage him, I have a very hard time seeing how an already handcuffed guy -who already insisted to police on leaving the premises - is justifiably tasered over and over again.
Secondly, since tasers are meant to incapacitate suspects, why do the officers repeatedly demand the guy stand up after having used a taser on him? This makes no sense to me and in fact seems to undermine the very point of a taser gun.

Re: The power of ubiquitous media - UCLA Police on YouTube

Matt Craven — Sun, 19 Nov 2006 23:59:18 -0000

Matt, perhaps your professional training may teach you otherwise, but my common sense told me that if the students had been about to get physical, they wouldn’t have bothered to ask for names and badge numbers.

True, but hindsight is 20/20 - prosecutors, courts, and internal investigations must deal with the mindset of the officer at the time that the situation occurred.

If you're an officer in this sitution - trying to deal with an unruly suspect - and you have a large crowd that seriously outnumbers you and your fellow officers - there's not alot of room for niceities.

Again, I believe the officer's comment was inappropriate. However, I wouldn't have been much nicer in his shoes with that crowd. We could debate the situation after it was over - not during it.

I’m not a lawyer, but my guess is that that’s a pretty flagrant abuse of power, if not outright assault.

I am not an officer in California and know little about their state statutes, however this is borderline assault under common-law and would likely never result in a conviction. I can't think of a single prosecutor that would seek a charge on this.

No one was armed, everyone involved was sober.

I don't know this - and neither do you. And certainly the officers in the middle of this situation did not know this.

When you underwent the training session, did they stun you repeatedly in the space of a few minutes? At full voltage? Or did they just zap you for a fraction of a second at the lowest setting?

I underwent shocks of 3, 5, and 10 seconds. Once using the barbs and the other two in drive-stun setting. It's not a pleasant experience by any means. I would describe it at the most pain I have ever experienced - that instantly faded when the voltage was turned off.

That said, I can assure you that you'd rather be hit with a taser than hit with a baton.

And their use–and abuse–should be tightly controlled if they’re to remain an effective tool.

I agree completely.

I do hope this incident serves to make people think about how accepting we’ve become of authoritarianism and of the naked exercise of power in this country, and whether we want to rely on the infliction of agonizing pain as our preferred means of dealing with anyone who seems to threaten us.

I don't agree with your comment about naked exercise of power - but that's your opinion and I get to have mine.

As a law enforcement officer, I would not hesitate to use an appropriate amount of force against any individual that I felt was threatening myself or another individual - and that includes tasers, impact weapons, or lethal force.

Was this situation out of hand? I'm not sure. There are things that we don't know - and we've yet to hear from the officers involved... I do know that there's an awful lot of folks commenting here who are completely misinformed and ignorant of both the law - and of role and responsibilities that law enforcement officers have.

Matt

Re: The power of ubiquitous media - UCLA Police on YouTube

Matt Craven — Sun, 19 Nov 2006 23:49:00 -0000

The student in question violated no-one’s rights, and therefore committed no crime. He warned the cops not to touch him and they assaulted him anyway. That student would have been totally justified to use any and all means at his disposal to defend himself. Likewise, the spectators would have been completely justified to step in and defend him. In fact, I’m embarrassed by the fact that nobody did so.

Umm, no, he would have not. And no, they would have not either.

Doing so would have had him end up either charged with a felony or killed by a police officer for "using any and all means at his disposal to defend himself" - and the same for the crowd.

Using force against a police officer is simply not a good idea.

Matt

Re: The power of ubiquitous media - UCLA Police on YouTube

Matt Craven — Sun, 19 Nov 2006 23:46:12 -0000

Me thinks Matt Craven doth protest too much. Its OK Matt, step across that thin blue line. You amongst friends here.

I think I've come amongst a group that has a severe misunderstanding of what the law is - both statutory and case law - as well as a complete lack of comprehension of the duties, policies, and functions of law enforcement.

Looks to me like the kid should have left the library when asked if he was not authorized to be there. The idiot cops should have just carrued him out of the building if he wouldn’t walk but these bozos just couldn’t resist a little torture since they had the kid cuffed and he was not a threat.

The student should have left when asked.

While I still believe that we do not know the whole story here - calling the cops idiots and bozos doesn't exactly help the situation.

I think the uniforms and the side arms compensate very well for the tiny penises, don’t you?

Oh, I see. An objective statement.

wow

Matt

Re: The power of ubiquitous media - UCLA Police on YouTube

Matt Craven — Sun, 19 Nov 2006 23:44:08 -0000

That is total [expletive]. No cop has any right to so much as touch me, period, unless it’s to defend himself or somebody else, whose rights I am actively violating.

What world are you living in where a police officer cannot use force in order to affect an arrest?

Matt

Re: The power of ubiquitous media - UCLA Police on YouTube

Bertil — Sun, 19 Nov 2006 12:20:38 -0000

The main consequence of this video, invisible from LA, is that foreign students will hesitate before coming to USA. I am a PhD student with a lead for spending a semester in UCLA, and I am truly concerned now: I'm white, but with a weak heart.

The only common point between every story that I've heard about friends going in America is an ID-check that went really wrong for no reason: most of my friends were Army officers taking a PhD program, not unruly, uneducated suspicious-looking guys. Several of them had a gun pointed at them either because they made stupid jokes, or because of their bad understanding of "Cop"-English: who else says "Freeze" and "Vi-icawl"? What does it mean, and what is wrong with asking? Isn't the "wheel" one of the four large rubber things that support the car? These were before "non-lethal" weapons.

The official statements don't seem to help that: it seems there are more concerned by the safety of the students around while the crowd is clearly sympathetic to the person tasered. (Anyone complaining about being disturbed by too much noise for ten minutes around 11pm? Or any concerns about going to a university were the computer room is not perfectly quiet?)

What I would like to understand is why the officiers didn't resolve to carry him: nothing seemed to prevent them, and riot polices whom I know do that all the time.

Ewan,

This French rule is actually a medieval tradition (that then spread to the nacent Oxford and Cambridge) after a XIIIth outburst of "scholars" (read: sex-hungry theology students, sic) threatened to "cross the Seine" (Sorbonne is a ten minutes walk from the Louvres, were the military power was). The dean knew they were just upset; the marchal feared they were armed (with "knife and cisors", for eating and correcting spelling mistakes). Because the marchal reaction made such a fuss, he obtained that no armed force should enter University ground without his express acknowledgement.

(I know because a friend studying medieval history mentionned it last year, during the student outburst about a job law.)

This rule was critical in 1968 and last years riot, because it is interpreteed by the academics in charge as a failure to resolve a mostly internal crisis. Arguments to opening the gates "has" to be of academic nature, and takes time: e. g. rare books being burned last year. The Police prefect doesn't like it too, because they get blamed for abiding little-know rule and waiting, while their are usually judged on taking swift decision.

What to remember is that students are unruly, and should be treated with a special understanding. This case proves it once again.

The rule still applies, and it is the reason why we have Rent-A-Cop's in our Univesrities.

Re: The power of ubiquitous media - UCLA Police on YouTube

Ewan McIntosh — Sun, 19 Nov 2006 04:40:14 -0000

In many countries, especially France since the 1968 riots, it is unthinkable to have *any* police present on university campus, a place where the market is in expression of thought. In Scottish libraries we also have limits on who can enter a library - you must have your card with you to get in, thus avoiding the issue in the first place.

I am completely shocked by this outrageous behaviour and hope that some severe action is taken against these rogue policemen. For me it amounts to nothing more and nothing less than serious assault.

Re: The power of ubiquitous media - UCLA Police on YouTube

samIP — Sun, 19 Nov 2006 02:57:01 -0000

TO anonymoustroll

he had the Nuts to use His camera phone for ‘citizen’ “Journalism,
every news Chanel is Using his video. [expletive]
What is wrong with You? i can't see your name
MR anonymoustroll
or [expletive]

Re: The power of ubiquitous media - UCLA Police on YouTube

Ania — Sat, 18 Nov 2006 23:24:57 -0000

Citation for the above comment: LA Times; http://www.latimes.com/news...

Re: The power of ubiquitous media - UCLA Police on YouTube

Ania — Sat, 18 Nov 2006 23:23:21 -0000

To add another point, something that i only just this second discovered, the UCLA PD composed of 60 police officers, has been awarded 4 'Taser Awards' to 4 officers for "extraordinary use of the Taser". I'm not joking. Guess by who? The manufacturer of the Taser gun.

The breathtakingly astonishing inference one can draw from the flagrant conflict of interest here, is the fact that this will encourage officers in search of prestige to use the taser more often -even when unnecessary- in order to recieve some 'positive' recognition, including the Taser Award.

The fact that our society condones special interest groups such as the Taser gun manufacturer to not only sell products to public servants, but also present officer's with the incentive to use the product shows just how irresponsible and unconcerned for the welfare of the public we really are.

Re: The power of ubiquitous media - UCLA Police on YouTube

Ania — Sat, 18 Nov 2006 21:55:47 -0000

I am actually perhaps in the minority here when I say that I am very proud of the students who witnessed this incident. Several students virulently approached the officers and demanded badge numbers, names and furthermore demanded they stop attacking Mostafa Tabatabainejad. Given that they were immediately threatened with physical violence I believe that they were justified in not escalating an already bad situation into further attacks. From the looks of the video, these officers were quite trigger-happy and ready and willing to call it doomesday if necessary. For the sake of everyone else there, the student's non-violent approach was the best way to get through this aweful night.

For anyone out there thinking of condoning the UCLA PD's acts, here's a word from a friend,

"Here's your reprogramming. Repeat after me: "Becoming a cop is not a magical ceremony that transforms normal men and women into justice-minded super-heroes. A badge and a uniform do not guarantee that someone is operating in the best interests of me, my friends or family, my tribe, or even the nebulous concept of society. People who the cops beat the shit out of do not always deserve it. http://archangelbebop.livej..."

Re: The power of ubiquitous media - UCLA Police on YouTube

Tom Servo — Sat, 18 Nov 2006 21:22:26 -0000

Me thinks Matt Craven doth protest too much. Its OK Matt, step across that thin blue line. You amongst friends here.

Looks to me like the kid should have left the library when asked if he was not authorized to be there. The idiot cops should have just carrued him out of the building if he wouldn't walk but these bozos just couldn't resist a little torture since they had the kid cuffed and he was not a threat.

I think the uniforms and the side arms compensate very well for the tiny penises, don't you?

Re: The power of ubiquitous media - UCLA Police on YouTube

anonymoustroll — Sat, 18 Nov 2006 20:57:08 -0000

A couple of comments:

- just how many [expletive] times to do the cops have to say "Stand Up!" before they realize it's not going to happen? (they ended up dragging him out)

- there's a meta-lesson being taught to the person who is told to "Stand Up!", then gets shocked and then is told to "Stand Up!" again.

- the psychological effect of using negative reinforcement to produce compliant behavior in public that makes the suspect appear as though they're guilty only sets the framework for what happens at the police station.

- college students have become a bunch of bovine, spineless cowards. If this were the 1960s that library would have been burnt to the ground. [expletive] citizen journalism... right on to citizen revolution.

- if you're going to use your camera phone for 'citizen' "Journalism", get in the cops faces or at least get a front row seat where the action is. Don't hang back in the crowd like the [expletive] that you are.

- this thing is just begging to be mixed up with the waterboarding video, set to something like "Born in the USA".

- if you think these cops were bold, just think what could happen on some back road with a hick cop who took his sweet time listening to you squeal like a pig. The application of non-lethal force desperately needs guidelines and consequences (trust me, non-lethal force will eventually lead to the application of more lethal force against police officers). I believe that every tool used to apply non-lethal force should require a video recorder and black box that would show, without a doubt, just how the tool was used and why. Otherwise every [expletive] encounter becomes an opportunity to apply non-lethal force and escalate the charges to something more substantial (read: allows the judicial industrial complex to extract more money from the victim). It's like radar guns folks... instead of catching people driving +90mph down the freeway, it will be used to extract $100 twice a year from aunt emma for driving 40mph in a 35mph zone.

Re: The power of ubiquitous media - UCLA Police on YouTube

Phillip Rhodes — Sat, 18 Nov 2006 20:39:46 -0000

[quote]An officer is fully within their rights to use a Taser on someone who refuses to submit to arrest.[/quote]

That is total [expletive]. No cop has any right to so much as touch me, period, unless it's to defend himself or somebody else, whose rights I am actively violating.

The student in question violated no-one's rights, and therefore committed no crime. He warned the cops not to touch him and they assaulted him anyway. That student would have been totally justified to use any and all means at his disposal to defend himself. Likewise, the spectators would have been completely justified to step in and defend him. In fact, I'm embarrassed by the fact that nobody did so.

Re: The power of ubiquitous media - UCLA Police on YouTube

Phillip Rhodes — Sat, 18 Nov 2006 20:31:48 -0000

[quote]On another note, resisting by yourself is not wise. Resisting in a large group is easily possible. People have been trained to fear authority figures. 30 students vs. a few UCPD would have resulted in some beat up cops who deserved it.

Sadly, getting evidence and “complaining” about it later will only result in the authority figure getting a slap on the wrist. Getting beat by the crowd will make them fear violating someone like that. Only then will something like this not happen again. [/quote]

Well said, friend. I could not agree more completely.

Re: The power of ubiquitous media - UCLA Police on YouTube

Taylor McGuiness — Sat, 18 Nov 2006 18:17:43 -0000

Remember, if you were to reach out and quickly pull BOTH taser barbs from the man's body, it would stop. The barbs are very tiny and it would be the equivalent of a bee sting to remove them. Many times, the taser barbs are just in the clothing, not even the skin, as they can be as far as 1/8" from the skin to be effective.

If I were in the same situation, I hopefully would have had the courage to pull the tasers from the guy. I would DEFINITELY have been arrested for obstructing justice, or similar, but it would have ended his suffering and the police PROBABLY would not have loaded up and shot him again once everyone was yelling and protesting.

Something to think about next time you see a blatant abuse of police power.

Re: The power of ubiquitous media - UCLA Police on YouTube

marek — Sat, 18 Nov 2006 16:22:06 -0000

In the court of law, you don't need video evidence to prove your case. 30-40 college students taking the stand is enough. We don't know all that happened from the video, but the college students there that night did. If they saw this as unjustified abuse of power (which the video shows they did) then we can end the video conspiracy theories and take thier judgement as informed. After all, people have been prosecuted with the testimony of only a few witnesses, here we had many.

Re: The power of ubiquitous media - UCLA Police on YouTube

Rob — Sat, 18 Nov 2006 14:14:45 -0000

Notice, in the video you can see a video camera above the doorway to the library (dark-colored sphere) as they try to make him stand up. I'm a student at NYU and have become increasingly aware of these cameras once they began to be installed in our building three years ago.

Unfortunately, the theft of a flat-panel monitor occurred right in front of two cameras but, since no one had checked to see that the camera was installed so it was pointed at the ceiling (instead of anywhere useful) the thief's image was not recorded.

Very interested to see what that camera recorded since it seems to point to where the student was seated originally. Either way there seems to be an 'OK to beat Rodney King' mentality in LA, just like the reign of terror prevalent under Rudy Guiliani in NYC (do the research - Guiliani was as bad if not worse than Bush despite his 'heroic' gesture in the bunker during 9/11; he allegedly made a lot of money off 9/11 as well).

Re: The power of ubiquitous media - UCLA Police on YouTube

financialaidpodcast — Sat, 18 Nov 2006 09:35:16 -0000

Matt Craven - you're absolutely right. I'll draft one formally on the web site on Monday, and here's the short version. Incidentally, last night's edit was unnecessary and I've restored the original post, my apologies.

The Unofficial Comment Moderation Policy

I reserve the right to edit comments for content and clarity. I reserve the right to alter or delete posts that are unnecessarily inflammatory, uncivil, or profane by my standards. I reserve the right to alter, delete, or vastly change the meaning or intent of any post that is clearly comment spam and to redirect all your search engine link attempts to the sites of my choosing.

Re: The power of ubiquitous media - UCLA Police on YouTube

Stephen — Sat, 18 Nov 2006 09:12:49 -0000

"As a law enforcement officer attempting to subdue an unruly suspect and being confronted by a large crowd of individuals, I do not feel that an officer advising an individual to back away is a problem.

I would likely not have made a comment about tasing a bystander - but I am not going to give over my name and badge number in the middle of a situation until it is under control and everyone is safe.

Then I’d be quite happy to return and give my name and badge number to the student that had requested it."

Matt, perhaps your professional training may teach you otherwise, but my common sense told me that if the students had been about to get physical, they wouldn't have bothered to ask for names and badge numbers.

And if your intention is to avoid a physical altercation, threatening to taser a student for asking your name is a great way to achieve the exact opposite of your goal. I'm not a lawyer, but my guess is that that's a pretty flagrant abuse of power, if not outright assault.

You make it seem as if the UCPD cops were in the middle of a shootout with a bunch of armed robbers. They were facing a group of COLLEGE STUDENTS in a LIBRARY, for Christ's sake! No one was armed, everyone involved was sober. It's not as if the bystanders were out to pick a fight--most of them were studying quietly when it all went down and were surprised and understandably appalled to see an unarmed man tasered while he was obeying the cops' orders!

"However - using a taser is more effective than fists, or a baton, or pepper spray, because once you end the taser shock, the pain fades and muscle control returns. There are no lasting effects in most cases.

Using a taser on a suspect who refuses to cooperate is a much safer method than others - and continuing to use a taser in a drive-shock mode is an effective and legal method of gaining compliance."

Recently on Fox News, they had a reporter undergo waterboarding to demonstrate how "safe" and "harmless" it was. My first response to this absurdity was, if it's so safe and harmless, why do they think it'll make people talk?

Your claims that the effects of tasers are mild raises a similar question. If the person is not immobilized and is only down for a few seconds while thrashing uncontrollably from the shock, how does that help an officer restrain him? Unless you use multiple prolonged shocks at high voltage.

When you underwent the training session, did they stun you repeatedly in the space of a few minutes? At full voltage? Or did they just zap you for a fraction of a second at the lowest setting?

Moreover when you were in training, you knew it was a completely controlled situation and your instructor wouldn't really hurt you. A real-life victim of a taser doesn't have that guarantee. My guess is that they're often scared and confused, and wondering if they're going to die.

Suppose a suspect had grabbed hold of your taser and started using it on you at maximum power. Would you have mentally shrugged and said, "Well, I know from my training it's not really that bad?" Or would you have feared for your life?

Regardless of what you say about the safety of tasers, you can do real damage with them--people have died from them. And their use--and abuse--should be tightly controlled if they're to remain an effective tool.

As far as the student himself: all this talk about whether the student was an a$$hole, whether he deserved it etc. is entirely beside the point. If being an a$$ deserved tasering, we'd have half the population of this country lined up to be zapped. The question is, did they behave abusively in resolving the situation the way they did. And I think they did.

I'll concede that a case could be made for the first tasering (though I don't think they should have). But they tasered him eight times over the span of six minutes, even after he was handcuffed and on the ground. And there were four officers there to handle the one man, and more than that on the scene. For a man who never physically threatened the cops and was on his way out of the building in any case, this seems, putting the best face on it, excessive.

I do hope this incident serves to make people think about how accepting we've become of authoritarianism and of the naked exercise of power in this country, and whether we want to rely on the infliction of agonizing pain as our preferred means of dealing with anyone who seems to threaten us.