The UCPD has published its Taser policy [pdf] as of September 27, 2005. I urge you to read the document yourself and come to your own conclusions about Tuesday’s incident, as I will be quoting only portions here.
For comparison: the Taser policy (p.3) of the University of Texas (Austin) police department as of December 2002.
UCLA Police Policy § 301.24 (Pain Compliance Techniques) gives officers the right to use a Taser in drive-stun capacity to attain compliance from passively or aggressively resisting individuals “only when the officer reasonably believes that the use of such a technique appears necessary to further a legitimate law enforcement purpose.” The policy urges officers to consider “the totality of the situation” and cites a number of factors (transcribed verbatim):
- The potential for injury to the officer(s) or others if the technique is not used.
- The potential risk of serious injury to the individual being controlled.
- The degree to which the pain compliance technique may be controlled in application according to the level of resistance.
- The nature of the offense involved.
- The level of resistance of the individual(s) involved.
- The need for prompt resolution of the situation.
- If time permits (e.g. passive demonstrators), other reasonable alternatives.
Furthermore, part 4 of the procedure urges (but does not require) officers to “give additional consideration to the unique circumstances involved prior to applying the Taser” to:
- Individuals who are handcuffed or otherwise restrained. Mostafa was Tasered at least three times after being handcuffed.
- Individuals whose position or activity may result in collateral injury (e.g. falls from significant heights, operating vehicles, etc.). Mostafa was Tasered at or near the top of a staircase. The video shows him falling down.
Putting aside questions of racial discrimination that only cloud the issue of unnecessary force, I have trouble reconciling the officers’ repeated use of the Taser with UCPD policy.
November 17th, 2006 at 5:53 pm
Two things;
1st, he was handcuffed and as you mentioned and was still tased 3 times i believe. He wasn’t trying to get up and run away or anything.
2nd, the officer(s?) also threatened (with a weapon) to taser bystanders when asked for their badge ID #’s…assault.
November 17th, 2006 at 7:11 pm
From what I was able to see on the video (and I admit, it’s difficult to follow), the use of force seemed excessive. Were I the parent of that young man, I’d hire the best attorney possible and go after those wearing the badges as well as the university for appearing to endorse their actions.
November 17th, 2006 at 9:10 pm
blake:
i just want to thank you for your honest and as-unbiased-as-possible report of what’s going on. you’ve provided a wonderful source of information, and i greatly appreciate it. blog away :)
November 18th, 2006 at 1:11 pm
I think you are being too easy on the policy itself. Does compliance always justify pain? The whole concept of compliance as justifying pain against passive persons is abhorent.
The problem is that if the passive resistance is a crime, than the person can be physically taken in to custody and charged with a crime and punished if found guilty. The deliberate infliction of pain to make the arrest itself merely more convenient is morally unacceptable. Note that a judge cannot order tasering as a punishment. What makes it acceptable for police to punish someone with tasering purely for disobedience?
This policy would justify the used of billy clubs against civil rights lunch counter protesters and someone like Rosa Parks who refused to get to the back of the bus.
November 18th, 2006 at 10:45 pm
BLAKE:
THANKS for the links to the two contrasting policies. Very helpful in thinking about how these weapons can be used with such different philosophies.
Here’s a link to a police officer’s article about the limits of pain compliance. It made me think that in the UCPD’s mind a student refusing to leave the libary, or leaving too slow, when he doesn’t have his ID, is analogous to a DUI suspect who refuses to let go of the wheel and get out of the car so he can be taken into custody. Under their pain compliance/ taser policy a limp demonstrator blocking access to an office in an illegal manner is the same as a DUI suspect who wont get out of the damn car.
November 20th, 2006 at 11:55 pm
Having watched the video on youtube (http://youtube.com/watch?v=AyvrqcxNIFs) it is clear that the officers had no intention of getting that lad out of the library.
Despite rendering him unable to walk with a taser (if I’m not mistaken, a taser is supposed to knock someone to the ground and keep them there) they repeatedly chanted “Stand up, stand up”
A bit tricky given a) his hands were cuffed behind his back, and he was on the floor
b) He was being held by the officers. That restricts your movement
c) As above, he’d just been tasered. Several times.
If the officers wanted him out of there, they would have simply carried him out. Given the size of those guardians of the peace, and the frame of the highly dangerous criminal they had on the floor in front of them, this would not have been a difficult task.
I suppose the question is, what happens now? I’m not that clued up on US law, but I’m assuming it’s not out of the question for the student to file a law suit against the police department for assault.
The video evidence is pretty conclusive, and doesn’t give the police much room to claim he was being unruly.
November 21st, 2006 at 4:27 pm
Thanks Blake: you are being very correct as ever.
It’s just a nice coincidence that you point out my same doubts on the correct application of the Taser policy.
November 21st, 2006 at 9:19 pm
“Despite rendering him unable to walk with a taser (if I’m not mistaken, a taser is supposed to knock someone to the ground and keep them there)”
Not in the drive-stun mode they were using. It’s more like a stun gun, touched directly to the person instead of firing the barbs into them. It doesn’t cause total muscle paralysis, and only causes pain in the local area. If he had the energy to scream about the Patriot Act, he had the energy to either stand up or tell the officers he couldn’t.
And if I were the parent of this kid, before I hired a lawyer, I’d sit him down and ask why he thinks he can throw a screaming fit at a bunch of cops and they’re not going to do anything about it. And if he cared at all about the other students whose studies he was disrupting.
November 21st, 2006 at 10:08 pm
Yeah, but his studies were also interrupted when he was repeatedly asked to leave (if i read the story right). He’s a student, doing some work, and made an honest mistake by forgetting his ID.
Either way, what the police did was uncalled for. Simple as that.
November 22nd, 2006 at 7:47 am
“If he had the energy to scream about the Patriot Act, he had the energy to either stand up or tell the officers he couldn’t”
And I’m sure the officers had the energy to carry him out, if they really wanted him out of there.
That’s without mentioning that the taser should be used to stopping someone from doing something, e.g. assaulting an officer, as opposed to forcing someone to do something, e.g. “stand up”
Which is besides the point. If they wanted him out, they would have carried him out.
November 29th, 2006 at 7:30 pm
Blake -
Why are you so worried about how some pissant university PD 400 miles away handles individuals who refuse to leave the premises when asked?
Do you think this could happen to you or anyone you know? Ever in a million years?
You seem like a very intelligent individual with a bright future. I couldn’t fathom why you would want to throw it all away by getting into a confrontation with law enforcement.
Our terrorist friend would be wise to remember: “Better tried by 12 than carried by 6.”
December 2nd, 2006 at 12:05 pm
Wow, “A proud american”. You realize real proud americans are fighting to stop racism and bring everybody together? This guy was getting educated, which you obviously are not.
Let me break down what you just said:
“Why are you so worried about how some pissant university PD 400 miles away handles individuals who refuse to leave the premises when asked?”
– He’s worried because this could obviously be taken as acceptable actions for asking a student to leave a library should this case be decided in favor of the police officers in question. What if your son or daughter were Mostafa? This isn’t about Race as some would have it be taken, it is about unacceptable abuse by a police force in place to protect the university’s students.
“Do you think this could happen to you or anyone you know? Ever in a million years?”
– Of course it can, it happened to this young man.
“You seem like a very intelligent individual with a bright future. I couldn’t fathom why you would want to throw it all away by getting into a confrontation with law enforcement.”
– He’s not getting into a confrontation, he’s providing an opinion. Welcome to the free world of blogging.
“Our terrorist friend would be wise to remember: “Better tried by 12 than carried by 6.”"
– You piece of shit, go die in a hole, this is why Americans are looked upon with disgust by the rest of the world, go worship George Bush. ( i do not hate americans, it just happens that most of the people in the world that have this frame of mind live in america. good job to all of you who live in america who are on the right side of this debate. )
December 5th, 2006 at 8:09 pm
http://www.chicagotribune.com/technology/la-me-taser18nov18,1,7745969.story?coll=chi-news-hed
“Am I the only martyr?”
Claiming that you’re a martyr when dealing with law enforcement in a post 9/11 world isn’t exactly the brightest thing in the world. He was a confused kid, and he was pulling a stunt. Unfortunately for him, there happened to be a hot-head cop who responded and didn’t take well to him likening himself to real martyrs.
This is also interesting:
http://webpages.charter.net/georgebbruin/mostafa
Particularly this quote:
“But alas, I must forgo such polemics as is the proper behavior of such a
removed academic as I.”
It appears that young Mostafa may have felt a bit of irrelevancy in the context of those he respected and admired. It looks like an opportunity presented itself for him to be defiant towards a oppressor and he took advantage of it, to his own peril.
Finally, in some ways, it’s pretty messed up. The kid was obviously smart and knew exactly what he was doing. Cops are thugs and not always terribly bright. I see a case of the strong picking on the weak here. Except in a different way: The intellectually strong picking on the intellectually weak.
Incidentally, his lawyer has apparently dropped the case.