UCLA Student Zaps Back
I’m sure most of you know about the UCLA-tasering incident on Wednesday night thanks to coverage on The Clog, among others. A UCLA student, Mostafa Tabatabainejad, was tasered multiple times while handcuffed because he did not show any student ID during a random check in his school’s library and did not promptly leave thereafter. In trying to escort him out the building, UCPD officers repeatedly told him to stand up and then shocked him when he refused to do so. After seeing and hearing Tabatabainejad in pain from the taser shocks, a fellow student asked for the officers’ badge numbers; one officer threatened to taser the other student as well.
Tabatabainejad will file suit against the UCPD for “brutal excessive force.” On top of that, his lawyer is trying to pull the race card, claiming that his client’s Iranian descent made him subject to the PD’s racial profiling.
On Friday, in response to the tasering incident, the UCLA community met 400 strong to protest the use of the shock-gun, which many believe was unnecessary for the situation. (You can read UCLA’s taser policy here.)
On Monday, a similar demonstration is scheduled at noon on Berkeley’s Sproul Steps.
Racial profiling? Only a fucking idiot could honestly believe that; this excuse is being propagated by opportunist assholes who are looking for a reason to transfer blame to law enforcement instead of a beligerent student.
UCLA policy is to have non-students leave the library after 10pm. They enforce this policy by checking for student IDs. When someone cannot show an ID for some reason, they must leave. This student did not leave, and resisted the request to leave. At this point, the UCPD officials had no choice but to physically remove this student. The officials told the individual to get up and leave numerous times, each time with the student resisting and the PD officials resorting to physical methods to get the student to comply.
Who is to blame? And does this sound like racial profiling?
The assumption that these events occurred because the student was of Iranian-American descent is ridiculously idiotic…unless one were to argued convincingly that being of Iranian-American descent makes you a huge asshole who doesn’t follow the rules despite all willingness.
Sounds like those who bring out the race card are the actual racists here. Either that, or they are looking for any reason possible to hate and try to hurt the police. Grow up; you’re in college, so act like a mature adult, rather than a disrespectful asshole with the maturity of a 4-year-old.
Comment by Lake Merritt — November 18, 2006 @ 10:13 pm
I’m inclined to side with the poster above, despite any of my commenting histories on this blog. There just isn’t any evidence shown so far suggesting that this student was racial profiled. Protesting this event in the name of racial equality disgraces victims of actual hate crimes and really makes the term lose meaning.
I wrote more about this event over at my blog, and I don’t feel like rephrasing, so feel free to check it out.
Comment by Chris Smyr — November 18, 2006 @ 10:56 pm
“The assumption that these events occurred because the student was of Iranian-American descent is ridiculously idiotic…unless one were to argued convincingly that being of Iranian-American descent makes you a huge asshole who doesn’t follow the rules despite all willingness.”
I’ve actually been making just that argument since I heard about this. It’s really more of an anecdotal thing, though. The best advice I can give to those who are interested in seeing this is to watch televised poker sometime.
Comment by Beetle — November 18, 2006 @ 11:45 pm
I agree with you on the racial profiling–I don’t know that there’s evidence to prove that. But how in the WORLD can you reasonably side with UCPD regarding their use of force in this case? I’m a very pro-law enforcement kind of guy, and I think we should support the police in doing their jobs to keep our communities safe. But there’s a line. Sometimes a thin one, but not really in this case. Put aside for a moment a general sense of reason and common sense–and let’s look at UCPD’s written policy on tasering…
a) Do you honestly think there was a potential for injury to the officers? There was no violent resistance.
b) You heard the screams. Maybe he wasn’t seriously injured, but we’ve heard news stories on people being seriously injured as a result of taser guns–reason enough to all come together and agree that it should only be used in REAL situations where the officers need to pacify/detain/etc. someone because there’s a risk to the officers.
d) Nature of the offense… I think this one speaks for itself. The guy wasn’t armed, there was no reason to think that he was, and I’m pretty sure he was in cuffs for most of the time. The violation was NOT LEAVING A LIBRARY and NOT SHOWING ID. I agree that he should’ve left and been removed–but it’s like $500 of punishment for a 5-buck crime. I doubt most reasonable people would disagree on this count.
e) He wasn’t resisting arrest by fighting the cops… he simply wouldn’t STAND UP. I think most people would agree that this isn’t a severe level of resistance, at least to the point where this sort of technique would be justified. If it were a massive demonstration and the guy was running away and throwing stones, etc… then absolutely. But come on, get real. Not to mention that they told him to stand up and told him he’d be tasered if he didn’t–forgive me if I’m wrong, but how is getting an electrical shock more likely to make you stand up? Doesn’t the pain not only put you to the ground, but take away your energy too?
f) He wouldn’t leave the damn library. I’d hardly stomach an explanation that there was some extraordinary need to resolve the situation immediately before it got out of control. They were just impatient, plain and simple.
g) Other reasonable alternatives… the whole point of ALL of this is that this was the ABSOLUTE WRONG method to deal with this type of case.
Taser guns should be reserved for, as indicated by this checklist, cases that demand immediate action and the detainment and pacification of a violent or SERIOUSLY resistant (to the point where a taser is needed to get someone to the ground who might be running away or kicking police officers, etc.).
These cops could have used other methods. One night on Channing, I saw BPD roll up with 20 officers and a paddywagon to take a guy away who was kicking and screaming and injuring officers… they didn’t taser him. They got enough support, chains, a strait jacket, and they DRAGGED HIM AWAY. And this was a violent criminal. That’s how it’s supposed to be done.
The taser might be justifiable for extreme circumstances where police officers have no other choice to restrain a subject who would otherwise flee or injure people. But this kid was no threat to anyone. He just wouldn’t stand up for them. If he was trying to run or kick and punch, fine, taser him to prevent him from getting away or inflicting injury to officers. But they were LAZY, they were IMPATIENT–they were perfectly capable of carrying him or dragging him away if they felt it necessary to do so. But no, they shot him with an electrical charge–not to prevent him from hurting people, not to prevent him from running… but because he wouldn’t stand up.
The whole point of all of this is that tasers, night-sticks, and guns are not intended to be threats to people who don’t want to listen. They’re methods of NEUTRALIZING DANGEROUS PEOPLE. There’s a reason why cops can’t say to an unarmed suspect who is resistant “stop moving or I’ll shoot you in the head” and then shoot them if they move. Guns are for neutralizing or killing someone who poses an imminent threat to peoples’ safety. Night-sticks and tasers are for the same purpose, even if they’re allowed to be used in less dire of circumstances.
A suspect doesn’t need to be lethally dangerous in order to justify the use of a taser to neutralize them–but it sure as hell demands greater resistance than this kid gave. These cops acted like they weren’t perfectly capable of just carrying him or dragging him to a police car, driving him to jail, and charging him with resisting arrest. But we all know they were–and anyone with any reason and half a brain knows that’s what they should have done. This was a disgusting abuse of power, and I’m even often one to give officers the benefit of the doubt (i.e. “well it looked like he was going for a weapon,” etc.)–but this case seems incredibly clear-cut to anyone with half a brain.
Comment by Jason O. — November 19, 2006 @ 4:06 am
Jason I agree somewhat, but you could have said the same thing in about 2 sentences.
Comment by tom — November 19, 2006 @ 8:35 am
Remember that policy dictates the officer should consider points a-g in making their decision, but that taser use is still a judgment call, so please keep that in mind:
a) I know you don’t think so, but yeah, there was potential for injury to both parties throughout the incident. The officers had already had to wrestle him down to the ground because he wouldn’t leave, and given the way he was acting toward them, it was reasonable to be uncertain about whether he had a weapon or not. Even when in handcuffs, more physical means to get him up and out of the library still might have been more dangerous (for the victim particularly).
b) Less than 200 people in the last five years have died from tasers, and often these deaths were due to other factors rather than the taser itself (heavy drug use for instance). Compared to how often tasers are likely used, the statistics of death/serious injury are so minute, it’d be wasteful to even bring it up.
d) Why was there not a reason to think he was armed? Doesn’t the incessant screaming before the police even do anything indicate that there’s something up with this guy? And yes, if the CSOs were the only ones to get involved, the violation was simply not showing his ID. But after he RESISTED actual police officers by not leaving when told, screaming his head off and physically being noncompliant, the violation kind of increased.
e) He was initially struggling as referenced by the police statement and witnesses. And remember that policy explains that an officer may deem it necessary to use a taser for actively OR passively resisting suspects. Also, the officers were not tasering him because he’d magically stand up in response. The taser ends resistance because it makes the suspect lose control of his body for a duration of a few seconds, making it easier to pick him up and take him outside, as is what happened.
You can’t be mad at these officers for following their department’s policy. You can definitely protest the policy itself, as maybe the taser SHOULD only be allowed for physically-threatening suspects, but these officers made a judgment call on a policy that supported these actions.
Comment by Chris Smyr — November 19, 2006 @ 10:47 am
if he is in cuffs, if hes passive, the cops dont
have the right to shock him. this debate
over whether it was or wasnt racial profiling
(although witnesses and the student suggest it was,
and truth is, you and i dont know yet.)
also, whether he was breaking any rules are
irrelevant:
the student is handcuffed.
the student was clearly not a threat.
the student was put in incredible pain for no reason other than the anger of the officers at being challenged. thats vindictive and illegal on their part.
Comment by mano — November 19, 2006 @ 1:42 pm
yo, mano, i agree with you that there was no need to tase this guy.
but, as far as the racial profiling, not sure where you are getting your info because everything i’ve read suggests that the CSO was checking everyone’s ID. care to substantiate your claim that witnesses have supported the racial profiling charge?
Comment by chet again — November 19, 2006 @ 2:13 pm
tom… i know lol
Comment by Jason O. — November 19, 2006 @ 2:51 pm
Why are my comments always getting delayed? If this one posts up successfully, I guess my last one got deleted(?)
Comment by Chris Smyr — November 19, 2006 @ 3:12 pm
Comments get caught for moderation based on words and links and such. I dunno if there’s anyone still checking and clearing those comments, though
Comment by Beetle — November 19, 2006 @ 4:00 pm
Good thing Jason didn’t win a council seat because he has no idea about how to shape law enforcement policy.
His post suggests that the police should have dragged this kid away. Well, that actually poses more danger for both the kid and cops. Don’t encourage cops to fight with the public, that’s when the worst happens.
In the wake of the Rodney King case, police departments nationwide emphasized not engaging in swarm-style techniques that had been encouraged prior.
Tasers are far safer.
I can speak from experience as I have indeed had a police department shoot me with a taser for a research project on law enforcement tehniques.
Was it uncomfortable? Hell yes. Was it painful? Yeah, but it’s the surprise of losing control that gets you. Did the effects linger? No. The amazing thing about tasers is how when the current stops, so do the effects.
There are safety issues and the effectivness of tasers doesn’t mitigate that. But the falling that generally accompanies being shocked is actually more dangerous than the shock itself. Departments would do better to indeed include medical reviews of suspects following a tasering to check for any adverse health effects.
Administrative reviews will go a long way to determine whether the officers followed their department — not Berkley’s — policy. If the UCLA population thinks the policy needs more review, more power to them. The point here is that policies on the use of force should be done locally.
But, in the long run. Encouraging officers to get into physical confrontations to drag people off is far more dangerous for the community at large.
And, if the officers are found violating civil rights. Screw em.
Comment by shockey — November 19, 2006 @ 4:43 pm
chet, according to a foaf who was there, this kid was the first one asked for id. apparently the CSOs who check id didnt ask this person for id, but concentrated or went immediately to the tased student.
this is totally 3rd hand circumstantial, so i wouldnt draw conclusions on it, but it is possible, since these ID checkers are relatively untrained students being paid 12$ to play psuedo-cop, that some gung-ho wiener saw mostafa, and went right up to him and escalated, or its also possible that the CSOs routinely pick and choose who they ask for id (they dont ask those they think are obviously students).
again, like i said, i dont know exactly why the student thinks he was profiled, which is why most people are approaching it on the brutality tip for now.
as to the demands of protesters, i think profiling practices, if they are used, should be reviewed, as they fall into a general category of law enforcement shortcuts… practices, that, like the taser and CS spray, offer an expedient way around the exertion of effort emotional or physical, which some of us believe is an environment that enables “bad policing”.
Comment by mano — November 19, 2006 @ 5:09 pm
shockey: yes, it’s a good thing i didn’t win, because if i did, i’d make sure that tasers were only to be used to neutralize dangerous suspects who were posing imminent danger to officers or the public. and yes, i would fully support its use in such cases. but most everybody agrees–this absolutely, in no uncertain terms, CROSSES THE LINE.
I’m a full supporter of giving law enforcement the tools they need to keep us safe–if you don’t believe me, that’s too bad. But I believe our peers and classmates should be safe from unnecessary use of force against them, in the form of an electrical shock or otherwise, if they ever refuse to show ID to a police officer. That’s a crime in and of itself, and should be prosecuted. But you don’t point a gun at someone and say “listen to me or I’ll shoot”… you shoot them if they pose a threat to the safety of those nearby.
Plus, common sense would definitely tell us that if someone if being defiant, lying on the ground in handcuffs and refusing to stand up– an electrical shock isn’t going to make them stand up. Tasers are normally for neutralizing someone who refuses to go DOWN. And you think I’m the one who doesn’t understand law enforcement policy? I’ve actually worked for UCPD, so don’t lecture me about how to deal with defiant subjects. Unless you’ve been a police officer, I’m fairly sure I’ve seen more real-world cases than you… several cases of this per week, in real life, when I worked there.
Finally, you attest to the absolute safety of tasers… that’s fine. But google “taser death” and see what comes up. I agree that they seem to be fairly safe in general… but that doesn’t mean that a) they’ll never kill or seriously hurt someone, and b) that a kid lying on the ground in the library who won’t stand up deserves to be shot with one.
So you can defame me all you’d like, but we’ve got to balance the interests of law enforcement tools with the interests of protecting unarmed, non-dangerous suspects from unnecessary force that won’t actually make the suspect any less defiant (as you could tell, the threat of more tasing–which is outrageous in and of itself because lethal or non-lethal weapons aren’t supposed to be wielded and have their use threatened if a suspect doesn’t listen–didn’t keep this kid from lying on the ground. It just shocked him and put him back on the ground). Since you’re going to make this personal, that’s fine… if you want total deference to law enforcement and the military (shoot first and ask questions later), rather than a balanced approach, I’m sure you voted for the other guy anyway.
Comment by Jason O. — November 19, 2006 @ 5:36 pm
And for the record, I don’t advocate an approach where the officers literally drag him out, kicking and screaming. Yes, that’s dangerous. In my experience, you get more than 2 officers there (and they certainly have the capability for that), you chain his legs, you handcuff his arms, and you wrap a strait jacket around him. Then you carry, not drag, him to a car and book him into jail for resisting arrest. It’s really not that complicated. Sure, tasering is easier (and you believe, also completely safe), but it’s the quick and easy way out. I repeat: I support using technology to make cops’ lives easier when dealing with defiant subjects that pose a safety risk to fellow officers and the public. That’s clearly not the case here.
Comment by Jason O. — November 19, 2006 @ 5:42 pm
jason, the “someone” on this case was not lying on the ground. the someone was saying “FUCK YOU IM LEAVING YOU ASSHOLES”, to cops who are there to make sure he leaves after they grab him unecessarily. In that case, the proper response is to let go, and simply say: “thats right, youre leaving”, and walk him out. problem solved…
Comment by mano — November 19, 2006 @ 6:32 pm
Mano: And that is evident how? It seems his consistent resistance to standing up when told would suggest the opposite.
Comment by Lake Merritt — November 19, 2006 @ 8:13 pm
are you following the same story mano? or too busy tracking down third-hand info to pick up on the facts? The guy was lying down the whole time.
Comment by tom — November 20, 2006 @ 4:53 am
Actually, it was on NBC 4 (in Los Angeles) and reported by student witnesses that he was leaving (walking away) until the cops grabbed his arms and thats when he started yelling. Then, they tried to force him out,and then he resisted, and then he was tasered. It was also on NBC’s website. It’s a pretty reputable source, in my opinion — not 3rd hand whatever the fucc you accused of Mano of using.
Comment by Anonymous — November 24, 2006 @ 12:46 pm
but the point is that mano said that witnesses corroborated the victim’s charge of racial profiling. nothing that you have mentioned in the NBC report supports that.
Comment by anon54 — November 24, 2006 @ 3:48 pm
i was referring to comments 16-18. Thanks.
Comment by Anonymous — November 24, 2006 @ 5:22 pm
i did not know that one can verbally abuse police officers without consequences. so anyone can say “fuck you asshole” to a cop and keep on walking? don’t think so. the kid became unstable, had some sort of anti-establishment agenda (reference to the patriot act) which explained his animosity toward the cops, and eventually had to be restrained. not sure how much the cops provoked him.
Comment by alum03 — November 25, 2006 @ 12:36 pm
people verbally abuse cops all the time… it’s free speech. if you’re not breaking the law, and you’re not under arrest and resisting, there’s not a whole lot that they’re really allowed to do. you can’t walk up to someone on the street and taser them because they say “fuck you pig” or something like that. i’m not saying it’s cool, i’m just saying verbal abuse (unless it’s really a threat) isn’t cause for violence from police.
Comment by Jason O. — November 25, 2006 @ 6:00 pm
I saw a drunk white kid piss on a cop’s car before a football game my freshman year at Cal. This goes beyond verbal abuse … HE PISSED ON A COP CAR!!! Needless to say, the cop did not taser the kid. Instead, he asked if the kid was drunk, and gave him a ticket (for several things, I’m sure). Point is, he did not taser the kid. Non-threatening, albeit irritating, behavior (i.e. yelling, pissing) are not grounds for sending volts of electricity through someone
Comment by Anonymous — November 25, 2006 @ 9:48 pm
Huh. It posted. I’ll repeat it here for clarification (I haven’t seen it myself until now):
“Remember that policy dictates the officer should consider points a-g in making their decision, but that taser use is still a judgment call, so please keep that in mind:
a) I know you don’t think so, but yeah, there was potential for injury to both parties throughout the incident. The officers had already had to wrestle him down to the ground because he wouldn’t leave, and given the way he was acting toward them, it was reasonable to be uncertain about whether he had a weapon or not. Even when in handcuffs, more physical means to get him up and out of the library still might have been more dangerous (for the victim particularly).
b) Less than 200 people in the last five years have died from tasers, and often these deaths were due to other factors rather than the taser itself (heavy drug use for instance). Compared to how often tasers are likely used, the statistics of death/serious injury are so minute, it’d be wasteful to even bring it up.
d) Why was there not a reason to think he was armed? Doesn’t the incessant screaming before the police even do anything indicate that there’s something up with this guy? And yes, if the CSOs were the only ones to get involved, the violation was simply not showing his ID. But after he RESISTED actual police officers by not leaving when told, screaming his head off and physically being noncompliant, the violation kind of increased.
e) He was initially struggling as referenced by the police statement and witnesses. And remember that policy explains that an officer may deem it necessary to use a taser for actively OR passively resisting suspects. Also, the officers were not tasering him because he’d magically stand up in response. The taser ends resistance because it makes the suspect lose control of his body for a duration of a few seconds, making it easier to pick him up and take him outside, as is what happened.
You can’t be mad at these officers for following their department’s policy. You can definitely protest the policy itself, as maybe the taser SHOULD only be allowed for physically-threatening suspects, but these officers made a judgment call on a policy that supported these actions.”
Comment by Chris Smyr — November 26, 2006 @ 4:32 am
Bad analogy #24. It would be more correct if, after the cop approached the drunk student, he shouted “DON’T TOUCH ME!” and tried to escape, and began resisting police directives to do otherwise.
Also, we don’t use tasers in Berkeley.
Comment by Chris Smyr — November 26, 2006 @ 4:34 am
Alright, I tried to post my reply again, and it again got moderated, so just look up at #6 for what I wanted to say. This system is kinda frustrating….
Comment by Chris Smyr — November 26, 2006 @ 4:38 am
OK, and I’ve seen kids get in trouble (at least stopped and get their IDs checked out) for verbally assaulting the police. And if they did not follow orders, things became worse for them. If a cop tells you to leave the library, and you refuse or cuss him out or resist or all of the above, expect to face consequences. Could this have been a result of cops on a power trip? Possible. Could this have been a situation of cops trying to restrain an out of control kid? Also possible.
People jump on the band-wagon of police brutality accusations before all the facts get out there. There will be an investigation, and hopefully the truth will come out. I have not seen enough to make a conclusion, one way or another.
Comment by alum03 — November 27, 2006 @ 11:27 am
I talked to some people that I know that go to UCLA and they told me that all of the media hype about this (on facebook and youtube and such) is a complete twist. Most of the UCLA goers said that he deserved it and was known for trying to create trouble. I’m annoyed to hear the real story (although a little relieved) because of how upset I was about the situation when I had seen it on YouTube and FaceBook and now I know that I have been tricked by the media.
Comment by John — December 16, 2006 @ 8:03 am
That media’s a tricky one
Comment by Chris Smyr — December 16, 2006 @ 2:45 pm
write him a ticket
Comment by saintholyman — August 28, 2007 @ 4:25 pm