Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 11/22/06 03:00 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: Couldn't you see the crowd forming in his "defense"? I know you might be too young and immature the power of a mob, but trust me, inciting a mob to act in your defense is NOT harmless.

A bunch of students asking the officers to stop tazing him and asking for their badge numbers is a mob? Ok, I'll indulge you. So basically you are telling me that the best way to control a bunch of people that are angry because you are tazing someone that does not deserve to be tazed in their opinion, is to use the taser on the guy some more? Ok, if you say so. Besides, they shot him because he refused to stand up, not because he was inciting a mob... Unless "stand up" is american for "disperse".

Secondly, you're saying that the tazing of the student was justified, because there were people asking to stop tazing him? Erm, what?

And does that matter? For all I care, the guy could have been dancing around naked for three whole days before the cops came.

Exactly. You're a silly european who could care less. Thanks for your crazy european input, but it's worthless in the politics forum. Go to General.

Thank you for that bunch of ad hominem insults. You have now convinced me that you are right, and disproved my point that what happened before the incident is not important. Clearly your rethoric skills are too much for my silly european brain to grasp.

My point, which you have apparently missed, was that there are alternatives when dealing with suspects that are lying on the floor and unwilling to cooperate, as evidenced by law enforcement in exo-American countries like the ones you have mentioned, alternatives that do not involve inducing unbearable pain in a suspect that poses no threat.

You seem to ignore the gravity of the situation.

I'm sorry, but I just don't see how a bunch of students asking cops for their badge numbers, combined with a guy spasming on the floor refusing to stand up, pose any threat to a couple of armed police officers.
Yes the guy was resisting, not complying with orders, and deserved to be dragged out of there. But an immediate threat to the officers, requiring him to be tazed to ensure safety for everyone? Hell no.

---

At 11/22/06 03:39 PM, Togukawa wrote:

At 11/22/06 03:00 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: Couldn't you see the crowd forming in his "defense"? I know you might be too young and immature the power of a mob, but trust me, inciting a mob to act in your defense is NOT harmless.

A bunch of students asking the officers to stop tazing him and asking for their badge numbers is a mob? Ok, I'll indulge you. So basically you are telling me that the best way to control a bunch of people that are angry because you are tazing someone that does not deserve to be tazed in their opinion, is to use the taser on the guy some more? Ok, if you say so.

Pick up a book about how the Detroit riots started. Basically, I'm telling you that it's not a crowd of peoples' place to confront and interfere in a criminal complaint issued by campus security.

Besides, they shot him because he refused to stand up, not because he was inciting a mob... Unless "stand up" is american for "disperse".

No, "get back or you'll be tazed" is American for "disperse".

They shot him first for non-compliance, "to subdue" and again for attempting to incite other students to come to his immediate aid against, "the motherfucking cops".

The student intentionally and deliberately acted to force the officer's hand. The fact the officer, well within his rights, fulfilled the masochistic students wishes only indicates he was doing exactly as instructed given the scenario.

Secondly, you're saying that the tazing of the student was justified, because there were people asking to stop tazing him? Erm, what?

You just don't get it. I'm sure you ever will.

Have you ever bore witness to a scene such as this, start to finish?

Yes the guy was resisting, not complying with orders, and deserved to be dragged out of there. But an immediate threat to the officers, requiring him to be tazed to ensure safety for everyone? Hell no.

No, not the safty of everyone. Fuck the safety of everyone. At that point in their apprehension of the suspect, the cops safety is priority number #1, the crowd priority #2 and the suspect priority #3.

I'd explain why, again and again and again, until you understand the policemen's position (because you still think cops haven't ever been mobbed) but giving you a lecture on police procedure would fall on ignorant ears.

---

At 11/22/06 04:01 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

Pick up a book about how the Detroit riots started. Basically, I'm telling you that it's not a crowd of peoples' place to confront and interfere in a criminal complaint issued by campus security.

Did they interfere then? I think the crowd did their civic duty in asking for the badge number of cops when they perceive them to be abusing force. And yes, a raid on a bar with 182 people where the cops attempt to arrest everyone, is perfectly similar to tazing a single student because he doesn't want to get up.

No, "get back or you'll be tazed" is American for "disperse".

Har, taser vs crowd, good luck taser. But at least you agree then that action should be taken against the crowd, if the crowd poses an immediate threat.

They shot him first for non-compliance, "to subdue" and again for attempting to incite other students to come to his immediate aid against, "the motherfucking cops".

To subdue a student lying on the floor. Right. And they didn't shoot for attempting to incite students to come to his immediate aid. Or they would have said "get back or you'll be tazed", as you just said. They tazed him for not standing up.

The student intentionally and deliberately acted to force the officer's hand. The fact the officer, well within his rights, fulfilled the masochistic students wishes only indicates he was doing exactly as instructed given the scenario.

Well, we'll just have to wait for the outcome of the trial to know whether the officer was in his rights. I do agree that the student intentionally was trying to piss the officer off. But tazing is not the answer. You taze when someone REFUSES to get down on the floor, not to get him to stand up.

You just don't get it. I'm sure you ever will.

No, I fail to see how a student lying on the floor, and students asking for badge numbers, require officers to shoot the student on the floor. Yelling "shut up" to the student or the crowd, handcuffing the student and dragging him upright, arresting people in the crowd, all those things make perfect sense. But shooting someone that's lying on the floor to make him stand up? Huh? I will never get how that's justified, nor how you can possibly think that that is justified

Have you ever bore witness to a scene such as this, start to finish?

No, our law enforcement doesn't use tasers, or kick people when they are down. I'm pleased to say I haven't witnessed police brutality yet.

No, not the safty of everyone. Fuck the safety of everyone. At that point in their apprehension of the suspect, the cops safety is priority number #1, the crowd priority #2 and the suspect priority #3.

I'd explain why, again and again and again, until you understand the policemen's position (because you still think cops haven't ever been mobbed) but giving you a lecture on police procedure would fall on ignorant ears.

Yes of course they would be ignorant, otherwise the lecture would be pretty pointless, don't you think? Unless you are in a habit of explaining things everyone knows already...

Of course I think cops have been mobbed. I've seen mobs, and I've seen cops firing teargas into the mobs, and clubbing the fools that think it's wise to charge the cops. I haven't seen cops tazing someone over and over again because he refuses to stand up.

Look, I'm not saying the cops didn't need to act. I doubt their safety was at risk, but let's consider the cops were in a dangerous position. You've got bloodthirsty students around you, crazed beyond reasoning, foaming at the mouth, armed with rulers and ready to beat the shit out of you, because you have tazed someone. How do you respond to that immediate threat? You taze the student some more. Please...

If they felt in danger, they should have arrested the student, arrested unruly members of the crowd, ANYTHING BUT making the crowd more angry.

---

At 11/22/06 03:54 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: I can't prove you said what I accused you of saying, so I'll assist the other guy in making stuff up.

Righto, you go and do that.

---

At 11/22/06 08:39 PM, JerkClock wrote:

At 11/22/06 03:54 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: I can't prove you said what I accused you of saying, so I'll assist the other guy in making stuff up.

Righto, you go and do that.

Are you still here?

Read up on basic rights.

---

At 11/22/06 06:56 AM, Demosthenez wrote:
I implied nothing of the sort.

Yes you did:

He made a scene and the cops tried to difuse it in the way they thought was best since a mob was forming around the kid.

There was a mob forming buddy.

A mob that never laid a single hand on the cops, yeah, big threat there.

OK, so let me get this straight. You are saying I could use that point to my advantage if he was a known insane person

A known paranoid schitzophrenic, not just anyone who's mentally ill(catatonic people for instance, would not pose a threat due to their mental illness).

yet you didnt say how you could or did used that as a point in your argument.

I did, over and over. You just weren't smart enough to catch it.

I will get to this later. Just wait. Now watch me bail out of this and several other points you made by saying "ditto above"

I do hope you know this is not helping your case any.

A lot of people talk about it when they are being arrested?

A lot of people talk about the patriot act in general. Thus your point about him bitching about the patriot act is worthless. It means nothing.

No he said directly "FUCK OFF" to the cops when they told him to sand up.

Okay fine, he said "fuck off", shit you still fail to demonstrate how that shows him to have been in the wrong.

Ditto to all the above. I hope you don't notice this is me bailing out.

Well I do notice, sucks to be you.

He was flailing around

If by flailing around you mean the involuntary reactions has body had to the shocking(yes, amazingly enough, your body reacts to electricity), then you have no point. While it's impossible to prove what was happening to his body, it is true that if he were unable to move after being tased, he wouldn't be the first. The cops know this, but didn't even consider the possibility.

And as I've said, even if he was lying down out of defiance, so what? How is that a threat to the police? How would that have warranted violence?

Ditto ad naseum.

Indeed, you have used that a lot. Seems you can not support your points.

Actually it was the video that made me angry.

Really? Is that why you went ape shit with insults and your precious caps lock because of something I said?

I somehow think that writing a cute little sketch is proof.

Well it isn't, come back when you have real proof.

What now bitch?

---

At 11/22/06 10:27 AM, brown-recluse wrote: The thing is, 1) they didn't know if he was unarmed. just because he was lying on the floor acting like an ass without a weapon in his hands didn't mean didn't have one in his pocket or hidden elsewhere on his person. healthcare workers are taught to regard every patient as if they have they have AIDS and protect themselves accordingly. Police officers are taught to treat suspect as if they are armed until it has been proven otherwise.

This is true, however they are also trained not to act until it looks like the person is reaching for a weapon.

2) The guy was acting unruly and the police didn't want to risk the possibility of this fool grabbing one of their guns while they were dragging them out.

That would be a bit of a stretch. At worst, the kid was being obnoxious, that would warrant taking him to a cell for a day or 2, but not tasering him, and then repeating it without even asking if he was able to stand or not.

---

At 11/22/06 08:58 PM, JerkClock wrote:

At 11/22/06 06:56 AM, Demosthenez wrote:

Well it isn't, come back when you have real proof.

What now bitch?

So basically your closing your ears and going "LALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALAL"

Fab, stop arguing with this little punk.

Hey isn't going to change his mind.

He's like Begoner, just not as smart.

---

At 11/22/06 09:28 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: He's like Begoner, just not as smart.

Come on, now. I think you give Begoner a little too much credit. I mean, I know I go a little liberal from time to time, but even he's enough to change my opinion, just by making a post.

As for the current topic, I'm just gonna reaffirm what I said before: both sides of the argument are idiotic, but if the cops had taken lighter action against the kid, we wouldn't be arguing in the first place.

---

At 11/22/06 09:28 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:
So basically your closing your ears and going "LALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALAL"

No I'm just not stupid enough to fall for the "This sketch I'm righting is proof I am right" thing. He offered no proof, just his bitter pro-police angst, as I see you are doing.

---

At 11/22/06 11:39 PM, defactoidZERO wrote: if the cops had taken lighter action against the kid, we wouldn't be arguing in the first place.

And the funny thing is, that's all I'm saying. They should have taken lighter action, not no action at all. Yet angst filled conservatives see the words "police brutality" and assume someone is argueing against any enforcement of the law.

---

Shocking.

What more is there to say?

---

One thing that I do find interesting is the lack of linked news article over this whole "fiasco".

Granted, the police acted in a very crude manner, but I failed to see where they went wrong.

Very clear warnings of when he would be tazed, very VERY clear orders to simply stand up, even after they had him picked up but the arms, etc. And whenever someone asks for an arresting officer's badge number, they're not required to show it until after the suspect is in custody.

And you have to realize that the student was trying to cause trouble. I'm sorry but I just don't see where they did something worthy of any action.

---

The only places reporting on it(or so it seems) are blogs. It's not so much how the student was acting as it is the fact the cops were more violent than neccessary, way more violent. You can warn someone that you're going to kill him if he doesn't give up his wallet, but that doesn't give you a right to kill him when he doesn't. Also the facvt they did it while he was on the ground, there's no justification for it. Laying down does not warrant a tasing, defiant or not(plus his muscles may have been locked from the tasing).

---

At 11/22/06 08:58 PM, JerkClock wrote: Yes you did:

He made a scene and the cops tried to difuse it in the way they thought was best since a mob was forming around the kid.

How does that in any way imply the police thought police brutality was okay or that they actually did anything that would be considered police brutality? Fucking A bro, I know what I said and I said nothing of the sort you are trying to claim I said. Dont strawman me you retard.

A mob that never laid a single hand on the cops, yeah, big threat there.

Since when is the definition of mob include violence?

I did, over and over. You just weren't smart enough to catch it.

Tell me how the students twisted perception of reality helped your argument in any way. Tell me how his perception (your claim, not mine, Im not pretending to read this retards thoughts) that touching could lead to police brutality or leads to assault is in any way rooted in reality or fact.

I do hope you know this is not helping your case any.

Did you not see the damned transcript I wrote for your retarted ass? He was resisting the police before he was tasered. I supplied proof they asked him to "Stand up" before he was tasered. Do I have to fucking spoon feed you?

A lot of people talk about the patriot act in general. Thus your point about him bitching about the patriot act is worthless. It means nothing.

Again, listen for the whoosh.

I didnt know it was common practice to make political statements on the state of our judicial system when being arrested by the police. The point if very relevant because it was proof he was not speaking on his behalf, he was speaking for the throng of people gathering in his defense. It is proof he was trying to incite a reaction out of both the police and the mob of people gathered around him.

There is a time and a place to spark political debate. When you are fucking being arrested is not one of them. You refusing to acknowledge and concede this is ridiculous. Do you honestly believe he was just talking for his own benefit?

Okay fine, he said "fuck off", shit you still fail to demonstrate how that shows him to have been in the wrong.

The cops told him to "Stand up" directly before he told them to "Fuck off." Thats resiting arrest and a direct order from the cops bro. Again, did you hear the whoosh?

Well I do notice, sucks to be you.

THE COPS TOLD HIM TO STAND UP BEFORE HE WAS TAZED. WATCH THE DAMNED VIDEO.

How do I prove something if you refuse to read what I spoon feed you (the damned transcript I wrote for you) and you refuse to watch the video proving my point? What the fuck more do you want? I cant prove what you are refusing to acknowledge when the proof is smakcing you in the fucking face.

While it's impossible to prove what was happening to his body, it is true that if he were unable to move after being tased, he wouldn't be the first.

BINGO.

You cant prove shit. You have absolutely nothing backing your claim. NOTHING. If your defense of the student relys on his twisting of reality and maybe's, your case is so damned weak I cant believe you still are trying to debate this.

The cops know this, but didn't even consider the possibility.

Thats all well and dandy except he was limp and on the ground before he was tazed. WATCH THE VIDEO. Listen for when the cops first say "Stand up" and when he first yells. WATCH THE FUCKING VIDEO.

I will repeat it again so it sinks in. WATCH THE VIDEO, THE OFFICER TOLD HIM TO STAND UP (implying he was prone and resisting arrest before he was tazed) BEFORE HE WAS TAZED. WATCH THE VIDEO AGAIN.

I will give you the exact second the officer says "Stand up" to the student and the exact second he first yells if you refuse to concede this point this time.

And as I've said, even if he was lying down out of defiance, so what? How is that a threat to the police? How would that have warranted violence?

You think someone who would scream at an officer for just touching his arm wouldnt be a potential threat? Have you EVER watched "Cops" before? If someone explodes at an officer, they cuff them (which I believe this student was initially, I am unsure) and book them. If they refuse more they get more punishment to make them more manageable.

And he was not resisting passively, he was throwing his weight against the officers and flailing at them. I also believe I heard the officer tell the student at one point to stop kicking out. That is not passive resistance, that is active resistance. If he was passively resisting he would have been dragged out of there, not have the whole ordeal where the cops are telling him to stop fighting them and such.

Anyways, this is beside the point. I dont care what the cops did after THE STUDENT escalated the incident. He was reisiting arrest from the get go and obviously did something wierd enough to warrant the CSO's or whatever they were to call the real cops to handle the situation. He was clearly at fault from the start and that is all that I need.

Again, WATCHE THE VIDEO, HE WAS ON THE GROUND BEFORE HE WAS TAZED.

Indeed, you have used that a lot. Seems you can not support your points.

Did you not see the fucking transcript I wrote for you at the bottom? Do you want me to underline and bold the relevant fucking parts? I mean Jesus Christ, this is like dealing with a five year old who refuses to read. Cmon bro, at least do SOME of the work.

Really? Is that why you went ape shit with insults and your precious caps lock because of something I said?

No, you are to stupid to make me angry. And I clearly said the video, it was nothing you said. Dont flatter yourself.

Well it isn't, come back when you have real proof.

The video is the only real proof we have now. The fuck are you basing your "reasonings" on then? You have a telepathic link with the kid? You have the police reports? The fuck you want from me?

And I will hammer the final nail in the coffin in a second. I have some hunches and some ideas of where to look to end this debate and I will post it in a bit.

---

1) Tabatabainejad was also stunned with the Taser when he was already handcuffed, said Carlos Zaragoza, a third-year English and history student who witnessed the incident.
He was already in handcuffs

2)The officers used the "drive stun" setting in the Taser, which delivers a shock to a specific part of the body with the front of the Taser, Young said.

A Taser delivers volts of low-amperage energy to the body, causing a disruption of the body's electrical energy pulses and locking the muscles, according to a report by the American Civil Liberties Union.

"It's an electrical shock. ... It causes pain," Young said, adding that the drive stun would not likely demobilize a person or cause residual pain after the shock was administered. Young also said a Taser is less forceful than a baton, for example.
The taser was in drive-stun mode.

3) [A]ccording to a study published in the Lancet Medical Journal in 2001, a charge of three to five seconds can result in immobilization for five to 15 minutes, which would mean that Tabatabainejad could have been physically unable to stand when the officers demanded that he do so....
This is no longer in the link it says it is supposed to be in and I can find no proof of it. Go ahead and prove it but as far as I know it was removed from the article for being complete bullshit.

4) This is about all I could find concerning the Lancet Medical Journal claim. Which led me to 2 interesting conclusions.
a) If that is true, the tazer was likely in its most potent form, the form where the barbs are shot out at the person. The tazer employed by the police was in drive stun mode, much weaker than the other mode where the barbs are shot out.
b) All the tazer deaths everyone has been jabbering about have almost completly happened when someone is fucked up on some drug or something. Whoops.

Unlike the dart-firing probes, the touch stun function only acts on a small part of the body, and causes pain and debilitation rather than total incapacitation. A Taser International training manual states that "If only the stun mode is used, the M26 becomes a pain compliance technique…"(11)

5) I read here his medical condition was bipolar disorder but I can find no verification of this. I can find nothing to prove or disprove his claim of a medical condition. I believe if he actually had a legitimate medical condition I would have seen proof of it by now. So take it as it is.

OK, Im done. I have proven beyond a reasonable doubt the taser did not incapacitate him because it was in the wrong mode to cause incapacitation and I have also proven beyond a reasonable doubt he was initially prone before he was tazed, evidence that he was resisting arrest. I also believe I have proven beyond a reasonable doubt the tazer in drive stun mode posed no significant risk to this student and that this student had no significant medical condition or if he even had a fucking medical condition.

---

At 11/23/06 05:17 AM, Demosthenez wrote:
How does that in any way imply the police thought police brutality was okay

You said because they thought it was best that it was okay.

Since when is the definition of mob include violence?

I fail to see how that helps your case. Wether or not you wish to play semantics with the word "mob", the simple fact is the crowd was non-violent. Unless you consider "Iwant your badge number" violence, but like your whole arguement, it's rediculus.

Tell me how the students twisted perception of reality helped your argument in any way.

If he thought he was being attacked and wanted witnesses, then he had every right dunce.

Did you not see the damned transcript I wrote

Yes, the transcript you wrote. You writing it doesn't make it so. I could do the same thing, would you accept defeat if I did?

I didnt know it was common practice to make political statements on the state of our judicial system when being arrested by the police.

You've never seen cops then.

The point if very relevant because it was proof he was not speaking on his behalf, he was speaking for the throng of people gathering in his defense.

Or out of outrage from being needlessly attacked by the cops.

There is a time and a place to spark political debate. When you are fucking being arrested is not one of them.

No, but until he's read his miranda rights he can speak his mind all he wants. It's called the first ammendment. Not the smartest time to do it, no. But he does have the right.

The cops told him to "Stand up" directly before he told them to "Fuck off." Thats resiting arrest and a direct order from the cops bro.

The problem is you assume he was able to stand. If you had the slightest knowledge about tasers, you would knoiw that people can't neccessarily stand immediatly after being shocked by them. Also, saying fuck off is not a threat to the police. So regardless of wether it is resisting or not, it is not warranting of force.

I ST UP ID

Yes, you are, thanks for admitting it.

How do I prove something if you refuse to read what I spoon feed you

I refuse to take some fabrication you wrote of what happened as proof? Well damn me to hell for that.

While it's impossible to prove what was happening to his body, it is true that if he were unable to move after being tased, he wouldn't be the first.

BINGO.

And so the cops were practicing police brutality when they tried to force him to get up when he couldn't.

You cant prove shit. You have absolutely nothing backing your claim. NOTHING.

Except the science of tasers and their effect on the human body, lack of violence on the student's part, as well as lack of any indication of violent intent. Thus nullifying any need for use of force on the cop's part. Not to mention, they tasered him again while handcuffed.

Thats all well and dandy except he was limp and on the ground before he was tazed.

You have no proof of that.

I ST UP ID AGAIN.

Not really again, but always.

You think someone who would scream at an officer for just touching his arm wouldnt be a potential threat?

Not if all he wants is for the cops not to touch him.

And he was not resisting passively, he was throwing his weight against the officers and flailing at them.

You have no proof of that, you're just saying it. You saying it won't make it so.

You refused to acknowledge the fabricated transcript Ad Nauseum.

That's not getting you anywhere, you know that right.

I id i ot

Indeed

The video is the only real proof we have now. The fuck are you basing your "reasonings" on then?

My perception of what happened obviously. At least I have the sense(unlike you) to not argue things that aren't confirmed as solid fact. Sadly, this leads to idiots like yourself saying "You're wrong cus you only think this may be the case, blah blah blah, whereas I know for a fact what happened." The simple fact is, you don't(and can't) know some of the things you are argueing to be definitive fact.

---

At 11/23/06 06:17 AM, Demosthenez wrote: 1) Tabatabainejad was also stunned with the Taser when he was already handcuffed, said Carlos Zaragoza, a third-year English and history student who witnessed the incident.
He was already in handcuffs

And them tasering him while he was already in cuffs helps your case how?

2)The officers used the "drive stun" setting in the Taser, which delivers a shock to a specific part of the body with the front of the Taser, Young said.

A Taser delivers volts of low-amperage energy to the body, causing a disruption of the body's electrical energy pulses and locking the muscles, according to a report by the American Civil Liberties Union.

"It's an electrical shock. ... It causes pain," Young said, adding that the drive stun would not likely demobilize a person or cause residual pain after the shock was administered. Young also said a Taser is less forceful than a baton, for example.
The taser was in drive-stun mode.

Of course, we don't know definitively if he was lying or not. But even so, it says it wouldn't likely demobilize a person, meaning that it can still happen. This still fails the part of him not being violent though(again, what threat did his lying down pose to the cops to warrant their violent subdueing?). Then there is the next part which you quote yourself.

3) [A]ccording to a study published in the Lancet Medical Journal in 2001, a charge of three to five seconds can result in immobilization for five to 15 minutes, which would mean that Tabatabainejad could have been physically unable to stand when the officers demanded that he do so....
This is no longer in the link it says it is supposed to be in and I can find no proof of it. Go ahead and prove it but as far as I know it was removed from the article for being complete bullshit.

That of course, is speculation on your part. I did just check and I can assure you that it is still there.

4) This is about all I could find concerning the Lancet Medical Journal claim. Which led me to 2 interesting conclusions.
a) If that is true, the tazer was likely in its most potent form, the form where the barbs are shot out at the person. The tazer employed by the police was in drive stun mode, much weaker than the other mode where the barbs are shot out.
b) All the tazer deaths everyone has been jabbering about have almost completly happened when someone is fucked up on some drug or something. Whoops.

Tasers are unlikely to kill people. Most of the time they die of shock. But that doesn't mean they should use it at the drop of a hat either.

As far as a "medical condition", I really know nothing about that one way or the other,

---

At 11/23/06 02:14 AM, JerkClock wrote:

At 11/22/06 09:28 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

"

No I'm just not stupid enough to fall for the "This sketch I'm righting is proof I am right" thing. He offered no proof, just his bitter pro-police angst, as I see you are doing.

And your offering jack shit either except," No way man, it didn't happen like that even though I have shit to use and I'm going of what if's and twisted perceptions."

---

Im not debating you anymore. The only thing I ask of you is to make your own transcript. Lets here it. If mine is wrong, lets see it.

---

Im just bumping this so JerkClock or anyone else wants to explain to me how I am somehow wrong in my line of reasoning for stating the student was prone and on the ground before he was tazed. To rehash, the cops clearly told the student to "Stand up" and "Get up" at two seperate times over a span of 30 seconds before he was first tazed.

So bump.

---

At 11/23/06 07:54 AM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

And your offering jack shit either except," No way man, it didn't happen like that even though I have shit to use and I'm going of what if's and twisted perceptions."

Or I might simply be saying other circumstances are possible and should have been considered. If you're going to violently subdue somebody, you should be damned sure it's neccessary.

---

At 11/25/06 01:37 AM, JerkClock wrote: Or I might simply be saying other circumstances are possible and should have been considered. If you're going to violently subdue somebody, you should be damned sure it's neccessary.

Im still waiting for your transcript since you have claimed my version of events is so wrong.

---

I'm not stupid enough to post a bullshit transcript and call it proof. However I did find this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mostafa_Tabataba inejad

UCPD policy on Tasering

The UCPD's policy on Tasering calls Tasers a "less lethal device," and says that "Although not absolutely prohibited, officers should give additional consideration to the unique circumstances involved prior to applying the Taser to...Individuals who are handcuffed or otherwise restrained." According to the policy, the "Drive Stun" capacity is appropriate "to eliminate physical resistance from an arrestee in accomplishing an arrest or physical search" (6A) as well as "pain compliance against passive resistors" (6B).[20]

In comparison with other law enforcement agencies in the same locality, the Los Angeles Police Department and Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department permit officers to use Tasers only if a suspect poses a physical threat or is acting combatively, the latter expressly forbidding the use of Tasers simply to move someone.[17]

Of the ten UC campus police departments, six have equipped officers with Tasers, but only UCLA has a policy explicitly authorizing Tasers to be used as a pain-compliance tool against suspects who are only passively resisting

So, evidently, UCLA just has a fucked up policy. Police could have been nicer, but this is clearly UCLA's fault, and not the officer's.

---

At 11/25/06 01:44 AM, JerkClock wrote: I'm not stupid enough to post a bullshit transcript and call it proof. However I did find this:

Yes, the transcript you wrote. You writing it doesn't make it so. I could do the same thing, would you accept defeat if I did?

Whats with the suddent 180 bro? Do you finally admit they told him to stand for 30 seconds before he was first tazed? Or are you going to just continue to tell me Im wrong despite the video explicitly proving the validity of my claim?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mostafa_Tabataba inejad

Lookie here. Didnt hear this part.

Witnesses say that when it was clear none of the other students were going to help him, Tabatabainejad said "Am I the only martyr?"

Trying to incite a riot, check.
Mob, check.
Uncompliant subject, check.
Resisting subject, check.

Hmmmm, I just WONDER why he was tazed. FUNNY.

UCPD policy on Tasering

Yeah, I already said its a pain compliance device. Whats new? And I already said drive stun mode doesnt incapacitate. Whats new?

---

At 11/25/06 02:06 AM, Demosthenez wrote:
Whats with the suddent 180 bro?

You do know my statement was just me making a point about how rediculus your concept of "proof" was and not me actually proposing to subscribe to it myself right?

Witnesses say that when it was clear none of the other students were going to help him, Tabatabainejad said "Am I the only martyr?"

Trying to incite a riot, check.
Mob, check.
Uncompliant subject, check.
Resisting subject, check.

Or it may have been that he thought they were treating him like a terrorist because he was arab. In fact, it could have very easily been that. From the article:

Tabatabainejad's lawyer, Stephen Yagman, announced on November 17, 2006 that he plans to file a lawsuit against university police alleging "brutal excessive force" and false arrest.[5] According to Yagman, Tabatabainejad was asked to show his university identification card and did not do so because he believed he was being singled out for racial profiling.

Of course, I don't think he was being racially profiled, but if he was filing suit for it, he obviously felt so.

Yeah, I already said its a pain compliance device. Whats new? And I already said drive stun mode doesnt incapacitate. Whats new?

Any taser setting has potential to incapacitate people, "unlikely" doesn't mean, "definitely not". What the UCLA policy shows is that they're perfectly okay with using violent subdueing on non-violent people. It's inexcusable. And they probably are prohibited from doing that by law.

---

At 11/25/06 02:31 AM, JerkClock wrote: You do know my statement was just me making a point about how rediculus your concept of "proof" was and not me actually proposing to subscribe to it myself right?

Generally when you say you will do something to prove me wrong, it is not just used rhetorically. FYI.

And you are funny. You still refuse to answer me. Do you continue to deny the police told the student to stand up for a good 30 seconds before he was tazed?

Of course, I don't think he was being racially profiled, but if he was filing suit for it, he obviously felt so.

Lawyer: no longer representing client. Also from the article. What a poor little martyr, he tries to go down and incite a gang of people to go down with him and he gets no one. Even his lawyer is leaving him high and dry. Poor, poor, poor, raghead (that aint to PC, is it?).

Any taser setting has potential to incapacitate people, "unlikely" doesn't mean, "definitely not".

Show me anyone who has been incapacitated by drive stun mode. And incapacitate does not mean killed while on drugs, it means incapacitate while straight. You are the tazer doctor and you have claimed I dont know shit about tazers so lets see you demonstrate the extensive tome of knowledge on tazers you possess.

And they probably are prohibited from doing that by law.

You are kinda retarted arent you? You do realize the police are the one who enfore the laws, correct? They arrest the people who break the law, i.e. the people they arrest are the lawbreakers, not the other way around. FYI.

---

Well campus police are typically in place to ensure order on the campus and quell riots, so it's not very surprising that they would have a provision like that for their officers.

A university is a perfect breeding ground for wide scale disruption because of factors like the liberal atmosphere, lack of respect for authority, and just the fact that you have a large collection of young adults in one area. This is even shown in the video when the other students started harassing the officers while they were trying to arrest the guy (there's nothing wrong with asking for a badge number, but not in the middle of an arrest).

The crowd was starting to become more agitated and the suspect was trying to further the disruption. The campus police can use those methods so they can quickly end such disturbances so the atmosphere can once again become one of learning.

---

What the hell. Friken popo shoudl listen to him. He has a HEART condition. Not like hes Superman.

---

Id be funny if the guy got tased then pulled a knife and stabbed the copper.