UCLA tasers student

[Unicorn McGriddle]

But tasers? FRICKIN' AWESOME.

[Bill Dungsroman]

That is a personal attack (ie. calling me a racist.). I honestly try not to attack people personally on forums because 1) it usually violates the terms of service

Of what? The internet? Your ISP? WTF are you talking about? Ha ha ha, don't you dare say Qt3, you martian.

and 2) people have a right to their opinions, so attacking them personally wouldn't be the wisest thing to do --countering their arguments would be.

And when you fail to do either and just cry over essentially nothing beyond your suddenly thinned skin, then what? I usually make with the penis jokes, but that's just me.

I have my opinions about issues and you have yours. We can both disagree on our opinions but we are still able to express them in a public forum.

But personal attacks of users in forums are uncalled for man...not cool.

Also not cool: flagrant douchebaggery. PHYSICIAN HEAL THYSELF. And I guess you missed the part where most people here think you are racist, myself included.

[DrDel]

I just watched the video again.

The police officers keep telling the guy to "Stand Up" and "Get Up".

When you are tazered you can't stand up. Doesn't it disable you? heh

Anyways, if you're told to leave multiple times by the library personnel and disobey they will get the University police. If you disobey the University police multiple times, they will call the real police. If it gets to this level you're obviously not cooperating.

I love the response from the wanna-be-flower-children:

"Here's your Patriot Act, here's your f---ing abuse of power."

Hardly a response from a pacifist! lol.

[Robert Sharp]

What does cussing have to do with pacifism? Nothing. He wasn't fighting them. Words aren't physical attacks, which is what pacifists are against. Pacifists can say "Fuck Bush" or "Fuck Vietnam" or whatever.

As for the tasering, people have already pointed out that within a few seconds, you CAN stand up again. The guy was protesting the action, so he didn't comply.

[skedastic]

I wonder what "Dr" Del thinks "pacifist" means.

[skedastic]

Robert, I would take the anecdotes provided by macho cops on the effects of tasering with a grain of salt. From a 2001 review in the Lancet:

The effects of stun guns have been reported to
increase with duration of application. With electrodes
5 cm apart, applications of up to 0·5 s will cause the
victim to be startled and repelled. 1–2 s of discharge of
current will cause the victim to fall. Falls commonly
occur in a slow semi-controlled fashion. The degree of
sensation evoked by these devices can result in a
response that far outlasts the duration of the current, so
discharges of 3–5 s may leave the victim immobilised,
dazed, and weak for 5–15 min.[2] In most people a stun
gun applied for 4–5 s under the rib cage will bring them
to their knees and weaken them.

The 5-15 minutes of "immobilised, dazed and weak" condition cite is to:

Robinson MN, Brooks CG, Renshaw GD. Electric shock devices and their effects on the human body. Med Sci Law 1990; 30: 285–300.

So, it depends on the person and the strength and duration of the shock. We certainly cannot simply assume the kid could have gotten up and chose not to. If one shock has the capacity to incapacitate someone for 15 minutes, it's most plausible to believe that five would almost certainly disable this skinny kid, even if we give the cops the benefit of the doubt and assume they were low-power low duration shocks.

[MatthewF]

"Here's your Patriot Act, here's your f---ing abuse of power."

Hardly a response from a pacifist! lol.

Gee, and here I was thinking that pacifism was exactly that! You know, using words instead of fists. Thanks for clearing that up, Dr. Bizarro.

[Robert Sharp]

Thanks for the clarification, skedastic. I just assumed that an actual cop would know about this, but that was my mistake. I'm betting being unprepared for it makes a difference too. So I guess there's no way to know how easily he could have stood up.

[Andrew Mayer]

Anyways, if you're told to leave multiple times by the library personnel and disobey they will get the University police. If you disobey the University police multiple times, they will call the real police. If it gets to this level you're obviously not cooperating.

In your society where do you draw the line? Does the individual have any rights to resist the will of an officer of the state, or is that entirely dependant on their "attitude"?

[Aleck]

I'm right there with the cops through the handcuffing (which apparently happens right after the first tasing).

What I don't understand (and Marcus, perhaps you can clarify -- and I do mean that seriously, since I'm not a law enforcement type) is why they would continue to tase him after he's prone and in handcuffs. I mean, I understand that from an average joe perspective, he's screaming and carrying on and ranting, but why wouldn't they just pick him and and bodily remove him from the library?

Also, can anyone confirm that UCLA's library is open to the public? I know it sure as hell wasn't when I was in college (early 90s). You needed an ID to get in, and if you weren't a UCLA student there were only specific reasons you could use the library (I used it a couple times when I was doing research and interlibrary loan wasn't going to be fast enough). I also know that the library at my college was very specifically NOT open to the public after about 1991 due to liability concerns.

[Anders Hallin]

There are militant pacifists.

[jfletch]

Also, can anyone confirm that UCLA's library is open to the public?

Yes it is, like I said earlier in this thread. Just not after 11pm.

[Aleck]

Yes it is, like I said earlier in this thread. Just not after 11pm.

Not sure how I missed it, but I did -- thanks for reiterating the point!

Aleck

[DrDel]

What I don't understand (and Marcus, perhaps you can clarify -- and I do mean that seriously, since I'm not a law enforcement type) is why they would continue to tase him after he's prone and in handcuffs. I mean, I understand that from an average joe perspective, he's screaming and carrying on and ranting, but why wouldn't they just pick him and and bodily remove him from the library?

I guess part of it is the adrenaline coursing through the officer's veins... my guess is they don't get to use their tasers much in the field. So they probably used some excessive force on the guy.

They probably should have toned it down and moved him away from the library a lot quicker, especially when the students asked for their badge numbers and starting questioning them... but we weren't there so it is hard to say. I guess only the judge can answer your question once the student's appeal is answered.

[DrDel]

What does cussing have to do with pacifism? Nothing. He wasn't fighting them. Words aren't physical attacks, which is what pacifists are against. Pacifists can say "Fuck Bush" or "Fuck Vietnam" or whatever.

As for the tasering, people have already pointed out that within a few seconds, you CAN stand up again. The guy was protesting the action, so he didn't comply.

Robert, as you may know there are different types of pacifism. When I refer to pacifism I am referring to the purest form -- the principled type (if you have ever read Mahatma Ghandi's bio or seen the movie Ghandi that is similar to the principled type). Using inaction to serve the greater good is the strongest, imo, form of pacifism.

Cursing and yelling like a fool is no form of pacifism I have ever studied.

sorry gotta run..

[Robert Sharp]

Ghandi was NOT inactive. He protested. Everyone knew what he was protested because he, you know, spoke. He didn't curse (well, not in the movie anyway, which is surely accurate). But he didn't just lay there and do nothing, as if that would solve the world's ills.

[Marcus]

Just because a place is open to the public really doesnt mean a whole lot. Its still private property and they still reserve the right to challenge anyone using the place.

[Robert Sharp]

Just because a place is open to the public really doesnt mean a whole lot. Its still private property and they still reserve the right to challenge anyone using the place.

No doubt. No one is disputing that, as far as I can tell. I think people were just curious about why they would have to do an ID check AFTER a person is already in the library. And the reason is because anyone can walk in during normal hours.

[Marcus]

Ah ok.

Yeah I recently had to do a foot beat on the USC campus and we had to stop people and make sure they had ID and went to school there because USC is in a pretty shitty area they are having a lot of problems with the kids getting robbed and shit.

[DrDel]

Ghandi was NOT inactive. He protested. Everyone knew what he was protested because he, you know, spoke. He didn't curse (well, not in the movie anyway, which is surely accurate). But he didn't just lay there and do nothing, as if that would solve the world's ills.

Oh no.. please reread my post. I never stated Ghandi was inactive. As he was learning his art he must have been involved with violence directly -- no specific example I can recall off the top of my head -- but I am sure he had to have been. He was in the British Army during the Boer War. You would think he would have played a hand in direct violence during the war even if he was with a Medical Company. You would think. But I can't say for sure. Also, you have to recall that we are using english to describe Ghandi's work. In my haste I used incorrect terminology -- words like "inaction" and "principled pacifism" -- Ghandi would be rolling over in his grave if he was buried. There are severe limitations in using these words because some of the key words do not translate well into english.

To further your argument about Ghandi not being inactive, Ghandi uses Christ and Henry Thoreau as some of his founding influences for his pacifist philosophies. The Bible was founded (partially) on violence. One could make the argument that Ghandi's pacifist philosophies are founded on violence using the Bible and Thoreau's famous essay "Civil Disobidience" but that would be stretching it a little bit and is a whole other topic of discussion. But I can see where you are going with this.

Anyways, getting back to my point...

Inaction is very different than what white (Brits) people say is Ghandi's philosophy of "passive resistance". I think Ghandi preferred the term "satyagraha" (sp?) which is either Hindi or Sanskrit (I forget which) for "truth" and "effort" -- or in other words (in the context of pacifism) "your efforts to discover and obtain the resistance in truth" or something to that effect. Bottom line is he did not like British terms like "resistance" or "civil disobedience" or "principled pacifism" but since you and I don't speak Hindi/Sanskrit we are stuck with these inaccurate translations.

Since we are stuck speaking english I think the term "principled pacifism" is the closest type of pacifism we can use to describe Ghandi's work (in the mid to later years of his life) unless you are aware of a more accurate term. I m sure others may disagree.

Speaking of his later years.. you are aware that Martin Luther King Jr. used Ghandi's work as a foundation to his cause, right? Two great leaders, both described as pacifists, amongst other adjectives, by our scholars.

The bottom line is that this person in the library who did not show his ID should in no way, shape or form be compared to a pacifist. To do so would be insulting all types of true pacifisits or students of "satyagrahas". It is unfortunate that some people think anyone who puts on an anti-war t-shirt is automatically transformed into a pacifist. The term has been so diluted by these inaccurate depictions... some people's responses to this UCLA library incident are cases in point.

edit: I should really proofread my posts.. oh well.. I think you get the gist of what I mean.

[Andrew Mayer]

The bottom line is that this person in the library who did not show his ID should in no way, shape or form be compared to a pacifist. To do so would be insulting all types of true pacifisits or students of "satyagrahas". It is unfortunate that some people think anyone who puts on an anti-war t-shirt is automatically transformed into a pacifist. The term has been so diluted by these inaccurate depictions... some people's responses to this UCLA library incident are cases in point.

So only Ghandi and MLK deserve civil rights? Are you suggesting a taser up the ass for everyone else?

It's wonderful that we have these great people in our history, but the point of civil rights is that we all have them. The really good ones, the ones that ended up in the constitution, are "inalienable". You can call people fuckers or be an asshole, whatever it is that makes you human, and they're still yours.

[Steve Canyon]

Using inaction to serve the greater good is the strongest, imo, form of pacifism.

I tired this one on my wife, but she didn't go for it and I had to hang the Christmas lights Friday afternoon.

[worm]

Stun baton = OK, but taser = bad? Or maybe I'm missing sarcasm here.

First part, no. Second part, yeah.

[shift6]

The bottom line is that this person in the library who did not show his ID should in no way, shape or form be compared to a pacifist.

So only Ghandi and MLK deserve civil rights?

Wow.

12345

[JM]

I guess part of it is the adrenaline coursing through the officer's veins... my guess is they don't get to use their tasers much in the field. So they probably used some excessive force on the guy.

Yeah, tasering students get the old blood pumping I bet! Just ask Marcus with his CAN YOU HEAR THE SCREAMS? posts.

Seriously, if a fucking cop is going OTT because he "gets to taser someone", then he's a psycho and shouldn't be in his job.

[Bill Dungsroman]

Oh no.. please reread my post. I never stated Ghandi was inactive.

Yes you did.

As he was learning his art he must have been involved with violence directly -- no specific example I can recall off the top of my head -- but I am sure he had to have been. He was in the British Army during the Boer War. You would think he would have played a hand in direct violence during the war even if he was with a Medical Company. You would think. But I can't say for sure. Also, you have to recall that we are using english to describe Ghandi's work. In my haste I used incorrect terminology -- words like "inaction" and "principled pacifism" -- Ghandi would be rolling over in his grave if he was buried. There are severe limitations in using these words because some of the key words do not translate well into english.

Yeah, except all of his actions translate to English quite well. Awesome. You totally dropped Ghandi's name and then you are not only claiming ignorance (after instructing people to read up on him), now you are claiming some silly translational error is evident in his exploits of speaking to Indian crowds (which the British had outlawed) and in getting arrested by his very presence on Indian soil. Did you like even actually read his book or read his bio or see the film, even?

To further your argument about Ghandi not being inactive, Ghandi uses Christ and Henry Thoreau as some of his founding influences for his pacifist philosophies. The Bible was founded (partially) on violence. One could make the argument that Ghandi's pacifist philosophies are founded on violence

I boggle at how retarded a person has to be to make this statement make any kind of sense.

using the Bible and Thoreau's famous essay "Civil Disobidience" but that would be stretching it a little bit and is a whole other topic of discussion. But I can see where you are going with this.

I have a feeling you really don't. This is starting to feel like Kitsune's retarded diatribe in the Peter Jackson Hobbit thread of late.

Anyways, getting back to my point...

Inaction is very different than what white (Brits) people say is Ghandi's philosophy of "passive resistance". I think Ghandi preferred the term "satyagraha" (sp?) which is either Hindi or Sanskrit (I forget which) for "truth" and "effort" -- or in other words (in the context of pacifism) "your efforts to discover and obtain the resistance in truth" or something to that effect. Bottom line is he did not like British terms like "resistance" or "civil disobedience" or "principled pacifism" but since you and I don't speak Hindi/Sanskrit we are stuck with these inaccurate translations.

Since we are stuck speaking english I think the term "principled pacifism" is the closest type of pacifism we can use to describe Ghandi's work (in the mid to later years of his life) unless you are aware of a more accurate term. I m sure others may disagree.

Speaking of his later years.. you are aware that Martin Luther King Jr. used Ghandi's work as a foundation to his cause, right? Two great leaders, both described as pacifists, amongst other adjectives, by our scholars.

The bottom line is that this person in the library who did not show his ID should in no way, shape or form be compared to a pacifist. To do so would be insulting all types of true pacifisits or students of "satyagrahas". It is unfortunate that some people think anyone who puts on an anti-war t-shirt is automatically transformed into a pacifist. The term has been so diluted by these inaccurate depictions... some people's responses to this UCLA library incident are cases in point.

Jesus. I must be in P&R. This is one of the stupidest, most meandering googlefucking posts I have ever read. You shot your mouth off (again) and are wrong DrDel, never mind with your sad efforts to retcon the whole debacle. You are attempting to justify your own referencing of Ghandi in this thread. Meanwhile, nobody gives two shits about that, nor is his inclusion in this argument remotely viable.

edit: I should really proofread my posts.. oh well.. I think you get the gist of what I mean.

No.

[DrDel]

Yeah, tasering students get the old blood pumping I bet! Just ask Marcus with his CAN YOU HEAR THE SCREAMS? posts.

Seriously, if a fucking cop is going OTT because he "gets to taser someone", then he's a psycho and shouldn't be in his job.

Well, I wouldn't go so far as to call the guy "psycho".. but doesn't your OTT apply to any profession (ie. lack of self-control), not just coppers?

[DrDel]

11-25-2006, 04:00 AM
Bill Dungsroman
This message is hidden because Bill Dungsroman is on your ignore list.

You know the Q23 experience is so much better this way.

[MattKeil]

11-25-2006, 04:00 AM
Bill Dungsroman
This message is hidden because Bill Dungsroman is on your ignore list.

You know the Q23 experience is so much safer for people who can't actually debate worth a shit this way.

Fixed.

If you're not going to concede on your ridiculous stance regarding the tasering, at least admit the Ghandi thing was a complete debacle and back away somewhat gracefully.

[Kirian]

The police: wesa am teh good with da PeeArr

Regardless of the circumstances and the geographical differences [which make a very large difference, I assume], the police are not presenting a great face to the public at the moment.

I can't say that I know enough about the circumstances to make a judgement in this case, but any future decision does not look to favour the NYPD based on current information.