Political Crossfire Forums

usa-1 · Joined: 09 Apr 2006 Posts: 80

airo wrote: usa-1 wrote: airo wrote: I'm sorry, but why is being tasered so horrible?

People are comparing it to being shot, or the like. As has been said, police have been using momentary pain techniques--with suspects in and out of handcuffs--for a long time now. From what has been explained to me by people who have actually been tasered, it's no different. A moment of blinding pain that goes away almost instantly after the fact and has a good chance of garnishing compliance.

The problem with electric shock is it ruptures cell membranes and is linked to a host of other problems depending on where the taser goes off on the persons body during a struggle. If shocked in the heart area it can damage heart muscle cells (blows holes in the cells) and can cause permanent damage of the nervous system feeding the rhythm of the heart. Here is more information on this (my opinion) inhumane treatment of electrical control they have been using for a long time.

Electric Damge to body

I would say a good rap with a baton to the legs would take a person down.

Well then, we have a serious problem, because every cop who carries a taser has serious, irreparable damage done to them!

That is most likely so. When they finally discover the ruptured cells result in cancer they will probably go back to the baton or "Calm Diplomatic" arrests like I see in London. The gladiators use to have a net to throw over an opponent to render him helpless. Do you suppose alternative ideas or restraint might be in order to find a more humane way of securing a suspect?

The Comrade · Joined: 16 Jul 2006 Posts: 12039 Location: Zagreb

agentkgb wrote: ubikk wrote: Kilo Tango wrote: People are idiots. If you don't cooperate with cops and you antgonize them, you get jacked up.

I think the right to privacy means that I should not have to identify myself unless the authorities have suffficient probable cause to actually arrest me.
I think in most states you have to identify yourself but I'm not sure. I agree that you shouldn't have to though.

asking for identification does not equal an arrest.

ubikk · Joined: 27 Jul 2006 Posts: 2091

The Comrade wrote: agentkgb wrote: ubikk wrote: Kilo Tango wrote: People are idiots. If you don't cooperate with cops and you antgonize them, you get jacked up.

I think the right to privacy means that I should not have to identify myself unless the authorities have suffficient probable cause to actually arrest me.
I think in most states you have to identify yourself but I'm not sure. I agree that you shouldn't have to though.

asking for identification does not equal an arrest.

So what? No one has any business knowing who I am unless it's their business. The police's business is to arrest crooks. If they want to arrest me, then I'll identify myself. Otherwise, why should I have to?

The Comrade · Joined: 16 Jul 2006 Posts: 12039 Location: Zagreb

ubikk wrote:
So what? No one has any business knowing who I am unless it's their business. The police's business is to arrest crooks. If they want to arrest me, then I'll identify myself. Otherwise, why should I have to?

to make sure you aren't a crook?

you aren't as unique as you think. where you live there are probably hundreds of people who would fit your descriotion.

dopplegangers if you will.

the purpose of the identification might be to see who you are. or you're in a place youweren't supposed to be?

i honestly find it hilarious how the police are supposed to do their job, yet they have to be restricted at every opportunity.

lovebush · Joined: 02 Aug 2006 Posts: 1147

Yen wrote: Quote: Pain has been used by cops to get compliance for a long time. My brother has showed me many of his techniques and they are anything but painless. Do you ever watch cops?

Where you building to an argument somewhere in that or did I miss something?

Quote: Except that the police by their own admission did not use the taser in its "stun" setting, they used it in its "pain" setting. Reflect on that for a moment, if he had been a threat, zap him and send him down with a stun, but the pain setting??? Thats just to gain compliance, compliance through exerted pain, the threat of more pain to follow. This is not the actions of a free society, that is the actions of a mongrel who has his authority challenged.

I was responding to your shock at the idea that the police would use pain to gain compliance, they have been doing it for years.

lovebush · Joined: 02 Aug 2006 Posts: 1147

ubikk wrote: Kilo Tango wrote: People are idiots. If you don't cooperate with cops and you antgonize them, you get jacked up.

I think the right to privacy means that I should not have to identify myself unless the authorities have suffficient probable cause to actually arrest me.

well if you make it onto the supreme court maybe itll be that way in the law. but until then, its not.

lovebush · Joined: 02 Aug 2006 Posts: 1147

[quote="von libertinism"][
One of the officer apparently "has been the subject of two other use-of-force complaints." citation

He's been on the force for 18 years.

Cops deal with the worst of society all day long, often force must be used in the performance of their duty. people in general dont like to be arrested, they often get angry at the officer who arrests them. If a cop only has two complaints in 18 years, he is probably too soft on the creeps.

finale · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 401

it's funny how you guys can argue for 14 pages worth of threads without the proper facts, especially The Comrade.

Quote:
he is Iranian descent and felt that he was being profiled, and that was why he refused to present his ID.

consequently, he was asked to leave and did so after multiple warnings. as he walked out, one of the cops who were called in grabbed his arm.

he was put on the floor and cuffed. he felt like being violated.

he was then tazed 3~ times for non-compliance because he refused to stand up. he started screaming and yelling something about the patriot act. (by the way, most people are physically incapable of standing up immediately after being tazed. so it's quite ridiculous to taze him again for not complying with the cop's commend.)

tazer is for imminent threats or physical harms, not for non-compliance. period. i honestly can't reconcile "an imminent threat" with "an unarmed student on the library floor cuffed and surrounded by 3 cops with tazers in their hands". the cops in the aforementioned article used excessive force and will probably be fired. either way, the student will likely get a modest amount of compensation as a result of the incident.

the Comrade, if you like cop brutality so much, why don't you move to a totalitarian regime or a police state more suitable to your liking, such as north korea?

also here's a link to rebuke your claim that tazer is not a lethal weapon.
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/metroeast/story/98ADC9BB824043E18625721C0019B718?OpenDocument

wyldejackyl · Joined: 10 Apr 2006 Posts: 7195 Location: Chicago, IL

Di wrote:
Really? You're quite certain of that? Because according to the university's press release, he wasn't tasered until after he had refused several requests to leave the area AND had began inciting the gathering crowd to "join his resistance."

Where is this press release? Do you honestly think also that the University would release anything publicly that would hold it liable? No way, they'd fight that out in court. They might not lie, but they might not present all the facts either. I know what I saw. I didn't see him being some "join my resistance" quack.

Di wrote:
That is a ridiculous analogy. This was not a 5-year-old, it was a narcisstic 23-year-old with delusions of grandeur who refused the lawful instructions of the university security officers. They did not bash his skull in with a baseball bat; they used a non-lethal but painful taser in apparently compliance with university rules of conduct for their campus security officers.

In your opinion he's a narcissist. You know about as much about him as I do. They didn't bash him in the head with a bat but they used a "less-than-lethal" taser (let's not confuse non-lethal and less-than-lethal here) on him after he was already handcuffed. If the University allows punishment like that to go on, they *should* be sued.

Di wrote:
Says you. The security officers and some other witnesses have said otherwise according to some reports, reports which apparently you have no interest in believing. That's your choice. However, I suggest that folks take a chill pill and do what Chancellor Abrams has requested, wait until the result of the investigation before simply accepting one side of the situation as gospel, and ignore anything that doesn't support what you want to believe.

Says me? Says you! ;) This sort of thing can go both ways, bud. I believe the reports, I just haven't seen them. If you could cite a link, I'd be most grateful. I don't think we'll ever know the results of the full investigation. The public will never know precisely what happened, or it'll be buried in a 3-sentence blurb on page 21 of a local paper - if that. You ignore yourself the possibility that the cops abused their power, so it's not just me.

Di wrote:
Again, there is indeed evidence. The statement of several people, including the security officers, who saw what happened before folks whipped out their video devices. This is why trials have two sides before juries are allowed to mete out punishment. :)

Show me the evidence, OJ - I'd like to see it.

Di wrote:
ROFL. Yep, yep, total objectivity being shown here. :lol:

About as objective as you were being with your statement.

Di wrote:
No, it's a privelege which can be revoked for cause. Period.

How so? You PAID to attend that school. Sure you have to abide by the rules, but you make it seem like they can shoot you full of electricity for not leaving the school library. Don't you think that sounds absurd?

Di wrote:
According to the university rules on the use of taser, the officers involved were exercising reasonable enforcement. I personally think repeated tasering was excessive, and wouldn't shed tears if they were fired for doing so. However, the rules as currently written allowed them to do exactly what they did. And again, the instigator in question was NOT in the process of leaving before being tasered. He went limp, and refused to walk on his own. Then he was tasered, after which time he apparently could not walk on his own. You really should review all the facts, not just those that support your personal hatred and bias.

As I said before, the University shouldn't have such rules. A Less-lethal weapon is only a tiny notch down from using a firearm, and should be used as a last resort. Last I looked, you couldn't even use these sort of weapons in war! If the rules are so written, don't you think a trained (apparently veteran) police officer would know when to use BEST JUDGEMENT and determining the best course of action? Sure, they all are given the power to do what's necessary to get the job done, but the good cops are the ones that aren't shooting people with tasers. Your recantation of what happens is heresay- it looked in the video like they kept shocking him and then told him to stand and he couldn't, so they kept shocking him some more. You should review the facts yourself, as well as the video (and post some links of these reports you so cite)- my post has little to do with hatred and bias. It has to do with seeing more often than not, police officers acting like brainless, violent, automata.

Di wrote:
He has no agenda? He has told you this personally, has he? Because I could swear that refusing to show I.D., refusing to leave the library when repeatedly asked to leave, and trying to intice onlookers into joining his "resistance" looks like an agenda to me. And the security officers' actions may not be illegal at all if what they did is in compliance with UCLA rules on taser use... which it apparently was, although as I've said I suspect they will be amending those rules soon. Do your homework before you make wild allegations. :)

He told you that he didn't, personally? All that's known from the video which was posted is that he refused to show ID, said he was leaving, and then was shocked repeatedly even after he wasn't a "threat" anymore - doubtfully a threat to begin with. Provide me with a link to your "homework," and I'll re-evaluate.

Di wrote:
Again, you're simply regurgitating your own bias and hatred. I've already explained that your simplistic statements about how the incident happened are demonstrably incorrect. When the full investigation is complete and both sides of the story have been adequately revealed, I'll make my own final judgment. I guess it's too much to ask you to do the same.

You already made your judgement. You're saying it's because of my hatred and bias is why I'm saying what the cops did was wrong. I never said that I hate all cops and because of this, that they are always wrong no matter what. Did you watch the video or not?

Rankor and Pissing · Joined: 04 Mar 2006 Posts: 9491

finale wrote: it's funny how you guys can argue for 14 pages worth of threads without the proper facts, especially The Comrade.

Quote:
he is Iranian descent and felt that he was being profiled, and that was why he refused to present his ID.

I'm just reading your post and identifying problems with it both in a timeline and logically. The above quote. "He is Iranian decent and felt he was being profiled" - when? Before or after he was confronted (obviously before he was tazered). If it was before, he therefore had an agenda. He refused to present ID, therefore put law enforcement into a corner to either force him to present ID or to have him leave the premises.

finale wrote: consequently, he was asked to leave and did so after multiple warnings. as he walked out, one of the cops who were called in grabbed his arm. And what prompted the cop to grab his arm? Logically this makes no sense and there's a part of the story missing here. It's possible however, that they simply wanted him outside of the Library to arrest him, so as to minimize the amount of people in close proximity, in case he turned out to be violent.

finale wrote: he was put on the floor and cuffed. he felt like being violated. Problem here and this may be a language thing... he WANTED to be violated (i.e. per his agenda) or as a result of being cuffed, he felt he was violated? Just as an aside, if a person wants to make a statement to the authorities - such as: I don't have to show you my ID, it's none of your business... they should expect to be detained, cuffed and potentially arrested no matter what their skin color, nationality or religion. That's pretty much universal.

finale wrote: he was then tazed 3~ times for non-compliance because he refused to stand up. he started screaming and yelling something about the patriot act. (by the way, most people are physically incapable of standing up immediately after being tazed. so it's quite ridiculous to taze him again for not complying with the cop's commend.)

So he refused to stand up after being cuffed. Then was tazered. Not tazed then refused to stand up and was tazered more. That he was screaming about the patriot act again shows his agenda. Using common sense - he probably planned it and wanted some sort of demonstration. I would agree that tazering him for not wanted to get up is abuse of power - but I'm sure he counted on that occurring. The cops should have simply dragged him off into a car and shuttled him down to the pokey. LA cops should have known better I agree - they were too stupid to understand this guy had an agenda, baited them into using force, and then counted on them abusing that force. LA cops have been historically some of the stupidest in the country when it comes to this kind of stuff. Not sure why - you'd think the cops would be representative of the California lifestyle but it seems they're more hardened pipe-hittin' mofo's imported from the Bronx or something.

finale wrote: the Comrade, if you like cop brutality so much, why don't you move to a totalitarian regime or a police state more suitable to your liking, such as north korea? Ad hominem attack on a persons opinion shows either too much emotion or a weak debating position.

finale wrote: here's a link to rebuke your claim that tazer is not a lethal weapon. Because I can kill someone with a butter knife doesn't make it a lethal weapon... this is what's called a fallacy.
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/metroeast/story/98ADC9BB824043E18625721C0019B718?OpenDocument[/quote]

The Grandmaster · Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 12:23 pm Post subject:

[quote="The Comrade"] ubikk wrote:

i honestly find it hilarious how the police are supposed to do their job, yet they have to be restricted at every opportunity.

Restrictions, by your own admission, are needed, so what are you talking about? The inability to use a tazer in this case would have done nothing to prevent them from doing their job.

Ask yourself this, it will make it very easy. What if these 4 cops did not have their precious tazer in this case? I suppose they would have been helpless to remove this guy, and he would have run around rampant killing everyone..

wyldejackyl · Joined: 10 Apr 2006 Posts: 7195 Location: Chicago, IL

They probably would have drawn their guns and executed him. For all they know, he's a "terrorist."

Ek0nomik · Joined: 17 Jul 2005 Posts: 2065 Location: La Fleur

wyldejackyl wrote: They probably would have drawn their guns and executed him. For all they know, he's a "terrorist."

Ok, can we stop the whole, "he's a terrorist" thing. Not once does the cop in the video call him a terrorist, that isn't the issue here.

finale · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 401

Rankor and Pissing wrote: finale wrote:
he is Iranian descent and felt that he was being profiled, and that was why he refused to present his ID.

I'm just reading your post and identifying problems with it both in a timeline and logically. The above quote. "He is Iranian decent and felt he was being profiled" - when? Before or after he was confronted (obviously before he was tazered). If it was before, he therefore had an agenda. He refused to present ID, therefore put law enforcement into a corner to either force him to present ID or to have him leave the premises.

i think that's intuitive. he thought that the cops asking for his ID was because he looks mid-eastern, that was why he refused to present his ID. i fail to see how the incident was premeditated and have no idea where you got the impression that he had an agenda.

Quote:
finale wrote: consequently, he was asked to leave and did so after multiple warnings. as he walked out, one of the cops who were called in grabbed his arm. And what prompted the cop to grab his arm? Logically this makes no sense and there's a part of the story missing here. It's possible however, that they simply wanted him outside of the Library to arrest him, so as to minimize the amount of people in close proximity, in case he turned out to be violent.

i never said that was logical and i just simply recounted the event in a chronological order. one of the cops grabbed his arm and handcuffed him as he was leaving the premise. that was what happened regardless it was logical or not.

Quote:
finale wrote: he was put on the floor and cuffed. he felt like being violated. Problem here and this may be a language thing... he WANTED to be violated (i.e. per his agenda) or as a result of being cuffed, he felt he was violated? Just as an aside, if a person wants to make a statement to the authorities - such as: I don't have to show you my ID, it's none of your business... they should expect to be detained, cuffed and potentially arrested no matter what their skin color, nationality or religion. That's pretty much universal.

whether he should be arrested or not has no bearing what so ever to my previous argument because i only oppose the use of tazers and to an extent, i agree he should be arrested for non-compliance.

Quote:
finale wrote: he was then tazed 3~ times for non-compliance because he refused to stand up. he started screaming and yelling something about the patriot act. (by the way, most people are physically incapable of standing up immediately after being tazed. so it's quite ridiculous to taze him again for not complying with the cop's commend.)

So he refused to stand up after being cuffed. Then was tazered. Not tazed then refused to stand up and was tazered more. That he was screaming about the patriot act again shows his agenda. Using common sense - he probably planned it and wanted some sort of demonstration. I would agree that tazering him for not wanted to get up is abuse of power - but I'm sure he counted on that occurring. The cops should have simply dragged him off into a car and shuttled him down to the pokey. LA cops should have known better I agree - they were too stupid to understand this guy had an agenda, baited them into using force, and then counted on them abusing that force. LA cops have been historically some of the stupidest in the country when it comes to this kind of stuff. Not sure why - you'd think the cops would be representative of the California lifestyle but it seems they're more hardened pipe-hittin' mofo's imported from the Bronx or something.

there were at least 3 cops there and they could have simply got him out of there. even if i give them the benefits of the doubt for the first taze (already excessive in my book), in no way, shape or form can you justify the repeated use of tazer on the student, like 3 times?. (referring to my previous post, most ppl are physically unable to stand up immediately after being tazed. matter of factly, that's the whole purpose of tazer, to incapacitate the target for a short period of time.) you need to lay off the conspiracy theory and put down whatever you smoking. even if he did have an agenda, what the cops did only proved his point. (post911 police state?)

Quote:
finale wrote: the Comrade, if you like cop brutality so much, why don't you move to a totalitarian regime or a police state more suitable to your liking, such as north korea? Ad hominem attack on a persons opinion shows either too much emotion or a weak debating position.

finale wrote: here's a link to rebuke your claim that tazer is not a lethal weapon. Because I can kill someone with a butter knife doesn't make it a lethal weapon... this is what's called a fallacy.
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/metroeast/story/98ADC9BB824043E18625721C0019B718?OpenDocument

the comrade was saying how tazer can't kill, all i did was to rebuke his claim by showing that it does occasionally and should not be used likely.

wyldejackyl · Joined: 10 Apr 2006 Posts: 7195 Location: Chicago, IL

Ek0nomik wrote:

Ok, can we stop the whole, "he's a terrorist" thing. Not once does the cop in the video call him a terrorist, that isn't the issue here.

Does the cop need to call him one? He's being treated as if he's one. Truth is, we're all being treated more like we're some sort of wacky danger to society, post 9/11. The second you step out of line..WHAM! Cops are on you, throwing authority this way and that. A great example, as much as I absolutely hate to cite anything on TV that's fictional, is the show "House." You might be able to see past episodes online if you missed them..but for humiliating one cop, notice what the cop does to make this guy's life hell (and the lives of those around him).
Excessive and unnecessary use of force. That's what this is about.

Rankor and Pissing · Joined: 04 Mar 2006 Posts: 9491

finale wrote:

there were at least 3 cops there and they could have simply got him out of there. even if i give them the benefits of the doubt for the first taze (already excessive in my book), in no way, shape or form can you justify the repeated use of tazer on the student, like 3 times?. (referring to my previous post, most ppl are physically unable to stand up immediately after being tazed. matter of factly, that's the whole purpose of tazer, to incapacitate the target for a short period of time.) you need to lay off the conspiracy theory and put down whatever you smoking. even if he did have an agenda, what the cops did only proved his point. (post911 police state?)

Sorry - nothing being smoked here - just common sense which is badly needed. It just sounds to me like this was planned... if it turns out he just refused on a whim and all this happened, I'll be surprised.

finale wrote:
the comrade was saying how tazer can't kill, all i did was to rebuke his claim by showing that it does occasionally and should not be used likely. Be accurate... he claimed it was a non-lethal weapon. He never said it cannot kill. As in my example, I would certainly call a butter knife a "non lethal weapon" however, given enough time, it can cause someone's death.

Regarding some police state nonsense... there will always be, in a large country with 300 million people for example, those who will abuse their authority. This is not indicative of a police state, a police action or some authoritarian movement. It is an isolated incident which is only known due to media attention. No more, no less.

wyldejackyl · Joined: 10 Apr 2006 Posts: 7195 Location: Chicago, IL

The correct term for these weapons is "less-than-lethal" NOT.."non-lethal". A non-lethal weapon is a crayon, useful for little more than pressure points or maybe an eye gouge. A kubotan baton is probably non-lethal as well, unless you are out to break windpipes. Less-than-lethal includes all those weapons illegal to use under Geneva Convention amendments as weapons of war. Including shotgun beanbags, chemical agents such as mace, OC and CS, tazers, stun-guns, stun-batons, microwave pain field generators, pepperballs, rubber/wax/wooden bullets, concussion grenades/rounds, flash-bangs, etc.

Rodack · Joined: 20 Nov 2006 Posts: 19 Location: Tonopah Nevada

Seems we are only getting part of the story as usual from the Liberal press. Why was he being escorted from the Lab?

finale · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 401

Rankor and Pissing wrote:
Regarding some police state nonsense... there will always be, in a large country with 300 million people for example, those who will abuse their authority. This is not indicative of a police state, a police action or some authoritarian movement. It is an isolated incident which is only known due to media attention. No more, no less.

by no stretch of the imagination was i arguing or advocating police brutality is an indication of a police state, i understand perfectly that it was an isolated incident. what i did was to take the liberty to reconcile your perception of the student's "agenda" in your reiteration with his "demonstration of police state". either way, that was not the point of my argument. (even though it certainly looks like US is heading towards that direction, but that's another can of worms.

Edit: clarifications

finale · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 401

Rodack wrote: Seems we are only getting part of the story as usual from the Liberal press. Why was he being escorted from the Lab?

then why don't you enlighten us with your impartial view on this matter? or are you just driveby trolling?

you need to reread my previous post.
finale wrote: he was asked to leave and did so after multiple warnings. cops were called in. one of the cops grabbed his arms and cuffed him as he was walking out of the library.