UCLU Student Tasered by cops in library!

politicalhumanist
politicalhumanist's picture
Posts: 133
Joined: 2006-10-09
User is offlineOffline
UCLU Student Tasered by cops in library!

Well, I see a HUGE lawsuit and riot. Fucking cops, sometimes they can be cool, but other times complete assholes.

http://dailybruin.com/news/articles.asp?id=38958

Quote:

UCPD officers shot a student several times with a Taser inside the Powell Library CLICC computer lab late Tuesday night before taking him into custody.

No university police officers were available to comment further about the incident as of 3 a.m. Wednesday, and no Community Service Officers who were on duty at the time could be reached.

At around 11:30 p.m., CSOs asked a male student using a computer in the back of the room to leave when he was unable to produce a BruinCard during a random check. The student did not exit the building immediately.

The CSOs left, returning minutes later, and police officers arrived to escort the student out. By this time the student had begun to walk toward the door with his backpack when an officer approached him and grabbed his arm, at which point the student told the officer to let him go. A second officer then approached the student as well.

The student began to yell "get off me," repeating himself several times.

It was at this point that the officers shot the student with a Taser for the first time, causing him to fall to the floor and cry out in pain. The student also told the officers he had a medical condition.

UCPD officers confirmed that the man involved in the incident was a student, but did not give a name or any additional information about his identity.

Video shot from a student's camera phone captured the student yelling, "Here's your Patriot Act, here's your ****ing abuse of power," while he struggled with the officers.

As the student was screaming, UCPD officers repeatedly told him to stand up and said "stop fighting us." The student did not stand up as the officers requested and they shot him with the Taser at least once more.

"It was the most disgusting and vile act I had ever seen in my life," said David Remesnitsky, a 2006 UCLA alumnus who witnessed the incident.

As the student and the officers were struggling, bystanders repeatedly asked the police officers to stop, and at one point officers told the gathered crowd to stand back and threatened to use a Taser on anyone who got too close.

Laila Gordy, a fourth-year economics student who was present in the library during the incident, said police officers threatened to shoot her with a Taser when she asked an officer for his name and his badge number.

Gordy was visibly upset by the incident and said other students were also disturbed.

"It's a shock that something like this can happen at UCLA," she said. "It was unnecessary what they did."

Immediately after the incident, several students began to contact local news outlets, informing them of the incident, and Remesnitsky wrote an e-mail to Interim Chancellor Norman Abrams.

So, what do you think?

IMO, this is a complete abuse of power by the fucking LAPD cops. I don't buy the bullshit that he refused to leave after he was tazed. A tazer immobilizes you, that's the entire point of a tazer. Of course he couldn't leave, the cops sent 50,000 volts through him. Shocked


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
Yellow_Number_Five

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
Sapient wrote:
I can't find satisfaction in pain experienced by rude idiots.

Try harder Eye-wink


Or try differently. Become a masochistic rude idiot and you'll find it.


Insidium Profundis
Posts: 295
Joined: 2006-10-04
User is offlineOffline
Zhwazi wrote:There is no

Zhwazi wrote:
There is no need to implement identification technology. Only a desire by some factions of humanity to control other factions of humanity, and the ability to do so, with identification as a means to that end. No "need" exists, only a want. And it is a criminal want.

Kaczynski is wrong. First, that technology or technological progress is monolithic, second, that technological progress is necessary, and third, that it is inherently causal of a decrease in liberty. Wrong on all counts. If you agree with him provide reasons.

Well, simply based on observations of technological progress in the last century, I think it's reasonable to conclude that technology just keeps advancing. Kaczynski writes:

Quote:
A technological advance that appears not to threaten freedom often turns out to threaten it very seriously later on. For example, consider motorized transport. A walking man formerly could go where he pleased, go at his own pace without observing any traffic regulations, and was independent of technological support-systems. When motor vehicles were introduced they appeared to increase man's freedom. They took no freedom away from the walking man, no one had to have an automobile if he didn't want one, and anyone who did choose to buy an automobile could travel much faster than the walking man. But the introduction of motorized transport soon changed society in such a way as to restrict greatly man's freedom of locomotion. When automobiles became numerous, it became necessary to regulate their use extensively. In a car, especially in densely populated areas, one cannot just go where one likes at one's own pace one's movement is governed by the flow of traffic and by various traffic laws. One is tied down by various obligations: license requirements, driver test, renewing registration, insurance, maintenance required for safety, monthly payments on purchase price. Moreover, the use of motorized transport is no longer optional. Since the introduction of motorized transport the arrangement of our cities has changed in such a way that the majority of people no longer live within walking distance of their place of employment, shopping areas and recreational opportunities, so that they HAVE TO depend on the automobile for transportation. Or else they must use public transportation, in which case they have even less control over their own movement than when driving a car. Even the walker's freedom is now greatly restricted. In the city he continually has to stop and wait for traffic lights that are designed mainly to serve auto traffic. In the country, motor traffic makes it dangerous and unpleasant to walk along the highway. (Note the important point we have illustrated with the case of motorized transport: When a new item of technology is introduced as an option that an individual can accept or not as he chooses, it does not necessarily REMAIN optional. In many cases the new technology changes society in such a way that people eventually find themselves FORCED to use it.)

Do you contest this? The same is true of cell phones, virtual money (bank accounts, credit cards, etc.), computers. What once was an optional and something that an individual was free to choose to indulge in or not indulge in has become obligatory in today's society.

Technological progress seems to be necessary because it provides great promise. There simply truth is: there is no reason for technology not to advance, and a great host of reasons for it to advance. And as we get better, more accurate, more convenient ways to provide for security, there is nothing stopping us from implementing them.

By the way, we're getting a little side-tracked. Recall, the specific issue here is a requirement for everyone in a university library to have an ID after dark. Do you think this is unreasonable?

An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.


SilkyShrew
Rational VIP!
SilkyShrew's picture
Posts: 147
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Yellow_Number_Five

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
Sapient wrote:
I can't find satisfaction in pain experienced by rude idiots.

Try harder Eye-wink

You're making baby Jesus cry Sad


GlamourKat
GlamourKat's picture
Posts: 461
Joined: 2006-08-17
User is offlineOffline
Insidium Profundis wrote: By

Insidium Profundis wrote:

By the way, we're getting a little side-tracked. Recall, the specific issue here is a requirement for everyone in a university library to have an ID after dark. Do you think this is unreasonable?

Awesome, on topic is good.
Rules are rules. And I'd hate to be the girl who is in the campus library after dark and gets raped or killed or both by some man that shouldn't have been in there and wasn't ID'd so no one knows who he is.
Or "insert bad thing done" to "insert certain person" by "insert random guy who wasn't supposed to be in there".
Those were the campus rules. I've seen people being kicked out of public libraries for talking too loud. They are allowed to tell you to leave for breaking rules. And if you don't leave, they are allowed to contact security.
That being said, however, I believe those cops were WAY out of line. The guy was down. And cuffed. They had no reason to taser him so many times after that.
I'm sure a lot of cops work under a better safe than sorry philosophy. The "getting charged for abuse of a potentially dangerous offender is better than getting killed in the line of duty" idea. Not that I agree with that.


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
GlamourKat is right. This

GlamourKat is right. This thread got a bit off kilter.

He should have produced a CAMPUS ID in order to be in the UNIVERSITY LIBRARY. The university library is for students.

It is no different than the fact that I am required to wear an ID badge to get into my building at my Day Job. If a person is not wearing a company badge, they do not belong in the building and are considered a security threat.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
Insidium Profundis

Insidium Profundis wrote:
Well, simply based on observations of technological progress in the last century, I think it's reasonable to conclude that technology just keeps advancing.

What it does and what it needs to do are different.

Quote:
When automobiles became numerous, it became necessary to regulate their use extensively.

Not true. It was done, that doesn't mean it had to be done.

Quote:
In a car, especially in densely populated areas, one cannot just go where one likes at one's own pace one's movement is governed by the flow of traffic and by various traffic laws. One is tied down by various obligations: license requirements, driver test, renewing registration, insurance, maintenance required for safety, monthly payments on purchase price.

Obligations created by government, not by technology.

Quote:
Moreover, the use of motorized transport is no longer optional.

I seem to be doing fairly well without it.

Quote:
Since the introduction of motorized transport the arrangement of our cities has changed in such a way that the majority of people no longer live within walking distance of their place of employment, shopping areas and recreational opportunities, so that they HAVE TO depend on the automobile for transportation.

They are not compelled to, therefore it is optional.

Quote:
Or else they must use public transportation, in which case they have even less control over their own movement than when driving a car.

Public transporation is usually provided by government. The technology did not create this, the government did.

Quote:
Even the walker's freedom is now greatly restricted. In the city he continually has to stop and wait for traffic lights that are designed mainly to serve auto traffic.

You don't have to, you can choose not to. I don't wait for the light to change, I wait for a big enough gap in the traffic. Red light, green light, I don't care, if it's clear, I'll go, if it's not clear, I won't go.

Quote:
In many cases the new technology changes society in such a way that people eventually find themselves FORCED to use it.

If no threat of violence is used the nobody is forced to use anything. It just becomes overwhelmingly beneficial to use it.

Quote:
Do you contest this?

I contest your interpretation of it. Technology does not reduce freedom. Government getting it's grubby paws on technology reduces freedom. There's a very important distiction to be made which you failed to make.

Quote:
The same is true of cell phones, virtual money (bank accounts, credit cards, etc.), computers. What once was an optional and something that an individual was free to choose to indulge in or not indulge in has become obligatory in today's society.

Not obligatory. Overwhelmingly beneficial and absurd to not have. But not obligatory. The Amish seem to be surviving without them.

Quote:
Technological progress seems to be necessary because it provides great promise. There simply truth is: there is no reason for technology not to advance, and a great host of reasons for it to advance. And as we get better, more accurate, more convenient ways to provide for security, there is nothing stopping us from implementing them.

I agree. But that doesn't mean it reduces our freedom.

Quote:
By the way, we're getting a little side-tracked. Recall, the specific issue here is a requirement for everyone in a university library to have an ID after dark. Do you think this is unreasonable?

It's a public university, correct? Public institutions are funded by taxes, so one of two mutually exclusive things can be happening.

1. The taxpaying library lurker has partial ownership of the library and does not need ID to be on what is in a sense his own property
2. The taxpaying library lurker had his money stolen and has absolutely no ownership of the library whatsoever.

I'm leaning toward point 2.


Insidium Profundis
Posts: 295
Joined: 2006-10-04
User is offlineOffline
Government is an emergent

Government is an emergent property that exists within every advanced society. As such, government is a necessary evil. The concept of land ownership is impossible without central authority. The Amish are primitive fucks, I don't much care to exist in a stagnant/regressive population. If you could provide one example of a successful large anarchist society, perhaps you will change my mind. But I doubt you will give me that.

Quote:
It's a public university, correct? Public institutions are funded by taxes, so one of two mutually exclusive things can be happening.

1. The taxpaying library lurker has partial ownership of the library and does not need ID to be on what is in a sense his own property
2. The taxpaying library lurker had his money stolen and has absolutely no ownership of the library whatsoever.

I'm leaning toward point 2.

I think I am done discussing this with you. Governments and social structures compete, evolve, and are selected for. The fact that an anarchic system has never been successful on a large scale should indicate something to you. An anarchic nation simply cannot compete with others, nor can it effectively remain a nation. I assume that you believe there should be no nations, though, at which point I feel inclined to point out that you are living in an idealistic wet dream. There are far too many competing interests and ideologies for everyone to want to live together in harmony, and central organization grants a nation a significant selective advantage over its competitors.

An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.


Insidium Profundis
Posts: 295
Joined: 2006-10-04
User is offlineOffline
Note: saying "the state is

Note: saying "the state is not legitimate" eliminates neither its reality nor its utility.


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
Insidium Profundis

Insidium Profundis wrote:
Government is an emergent property that exists within every advanced society. As such, government is a necessary evil.

Non sequitur. You did not demonstrate how it is "necessary", you seemed to just jump to that conclusion based on a common figure of speech which jumped to mind.

Quote:
The concept of land ownership is impossible without central authority.

Ownership of land is just like ownership of anything else that we own.

Quote:
The Amish are primitive fucks, I don't much care to exist in a stagnant/regressive population.

Me neither, I was just using the example to point out that things which it is claimed are "necessary" are not necessary if a single example of it not being a factor of what it is supposedly necessary for can be isolated. The rule must either be changed or it is invalid except as a tendency.

Quote:
If you could provide one example of a successful large anarchist society, perhaps you will change my mind. But I doubt you will give me that.

I would say that we are already in anarchy, essentially. Anything not explicitly in the white market, done in the face of a bureaucrat or cop, is in a sense, done on the black market (possibly pending review by a bureaucrat), which is in a purpetual state of anarchy and can exist in no other state if it is to remain a black market. Most events and exchanges are not reviewed by a bureaucrat or police officer...those events occured in anarchy or on the black market.

Quote:
I think I am done discussing this with you. Governments and social structures compete, evolve, and are selected for.

For what?

Quote:
The fact that an anarchic system has never been successful on a large scale should indicate something to you.

An anarchic system is all that has ever been successful. The degree of success a society has is directly proportional to how much of that society is in an effective state of anarchy.

Quote:
An anarchic nation simply cannot compete with others, nor can it effectively remain a nation.

An anarchic nation, being a contradiction in terms, cannot be a nation in the first place. Anarchy is not national. It is the absence of a nation. It is the absence of government, of law enforcement, of governmental force. All the world is anarchy until the government asserts it's presence, and only while the government asserts it's presence, after which it reverts to anarchy.

Quote:
I assume that you believe there should be no nations, though, at which point I feel inclined to point out that you are living in an idealistic wet dream.

I think there should be none, yes. I don't expect to actually see no nations. Don't accuse me of living in a dreamworld just for telling you the way I think things ought to be.

Quote:
There are far too many competing interests and ideologies for everyone to want to live together in harmony, and central organization grants a nation a significant selective advantage over its competitors.

People do not have to want to live together in harmony. They should, but that's a bit irrelevant. All the competing interests gain power through the state, and the government is the means through which they ensure disharmony. Central organization is not necessarily an advantage. If the competitor knows how, it can easily become a disadvantage.

You seem to not be able to see what I'm saying because you're kinda trapped in a statist mode of thinking. I've tried assuming states and government, and I looked at the world from the other perspective. Give the world a look from my perspective and tell me what you see.