UCLA cops taser ID-less student

[almaty 19]

What the fark is up with them yelling for him to stand up?

You just tased the guy, TWICE, and expect him to get up and leave just like that?

According to some, he was suppose to

i have worked in prisons and did psych testing and still do on cops..not all of them are mentally adjusted and boy scouts

OK . . "worked" in prisons brother Almaty ?

My ex-brother-in-law "worked" in prison also for 6 years

i was on the other side i hope....and made more than 12 cents a day

[mrc 0]

Here's my take on the situation. I grew up in SoCal and I'm a staunch supporter of USC. UCLA is USC's main rival; that being said, I firmly agree with the tasering of all UCLA students.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

Here's my take on the situation. I grew up in SoCal and I'm a staunch supporter of USC. UCLA is USC's main rival; that being said, I firmly agree with the tasering of all UCLA students.

[DeadPoolX 9]

There's something that some of you should be aware of here. Practically all police departments (including security guards) adhere to usually one of these three policing styles: The Watchman, Legalistic, and Service styles.

What are these and how they break down?

The Watchman style is a type of policing marked by a concern for order and maintenance. These are the police departments that purposefully train and order their officers to be forceful, and to engage suspects and those they believe who are breaking the law or otherwise causing a disturbance. The campus policemen who tasered this college student were most likely of this style.

The Legalistic style is characteristic of following the law to letter. These are the officers who will ticket you for going 41 miles-per-hour in a 40 mile-per-hour zone. They don't use a whole lot of personal discretion in their work, which can be good and bad at times.

The Service style is typical of policing that holds a concern for helping, rather than strict enforcement. Examples of this might be police departments and officers that employ community resources, such as drug-treatment programs.

So what does all of this mean? It means that aside from the fact that police officers are human -- and bring to work their very human problems -- the police departments they work in have a huge effect on how they operate. Some departments are a lot "tougher" on crime (or potential crime) than others.

Now...as to my opinion of the case here, I think the student lacking an ID should've been told to remove himself from the premises and if he blatantly refused (as he did), been arrested and perhaps detained a while for questioning. The use of tasers was a bit over-the-top though.

In regards to the examples Aussiewench provided...all of that could have very well happened; however, a police officer can demand to see anyone's identification. This was true before 9/11. Usually they needed a reason though. Just asking random people for ID would constitute harassment and could get them, and their department, in trouble.

Now, it could be, with the case of that guy standing behind the vehicle was indeed making the nearby residents of the neighborhood nervous. In addition, perhaps the police were looking for a vehicle that was similar in make and model or perhaps a man who resembled this individual. All of those situations would qualify the police being called out to "investigate" and if the individual resisted, he could be arrested. There are lots of variables we do not know in this situation, however, so saying for certain is beyond any of our capabilities.

In the second case (Aussiewench's brother-in-law), it is true that you do not need to show the police your identification. However, not doing so means the police can -- and most likely will -- arrest you and haul you in. This was true before 9/11, as I've known it to happen to some people. So while you are fully within your rights to withhold your ID when law enforcement arrives, they are fully within their rights to arrest you for it and claim it as "resisting arrest."

It should also be noted that, contrary to what you might see in many television shows, the police do not need to read off someone's "miranda rights" at the time of arrest. The "miranda rights" must be read before any custodial interrogation procedures can begin, so that the suspect understands their rights in the proceedings. But before that, and during the actual arrest, it is at the discretion of the arresting officer to read them or not. The "miranda rights" also only pertain to custodial interrogations, so standard booking questions (i.e. name, date of birth, address, etc) are not protected by it.

[Jenn! 918]

So while you are fully within your rights to withhold your ID when law enforcement arrives, they are fully within their rights to arrest you for it and claim it as "resisting arrest."

I'm wondering then how that qualifies as being within your rights to withold your ID if the consequence is that you are arrested and charged with resisting arrest. By that logic, couldn't one say that it is within your rights to commit murder?

[DeadPoolX 9]

So while you are fully within your rights to withhold your ID when law enforcement arrives, they are fully within their rights to arrest you for it and claim it as "resisting arrest."

I'm wondering then how that qualifies as being within your rights to withold your ID if the consequence is that you are arrested and charged with resisting arrest. By that logic, couldn't one say that it is within your rights to commit murder?

I'm sorry. I should've clarified my statement. What I meant was that the police don't have to arrest you. It's up to the discretion of the officer at the time. However, if the officer chooses to arrest you, he or she can do it for not producing the identification.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

a co-worker viewed this and his comment was as follows:

after the second taser, the individual should have been hauled out by force. no need to continue to zap him in front of a large supply of ready rioters. (and co-worker was a police officer until he started working with us 2 months ago).

[sparkofcreation 0]

Seriously. Just over 4 months here and I'm sick of hearing about all this shite. Police bullies....police state. If it wasn't for my husband, I sure wouldn't be here in the US. Its nuts.

aussie, i've never seen anyone get hurt when they do what the policeman tells them to do. be polite, keep your hands visible at all times, and obey the policeman.

I have seen enough video evidence and accounts of things like this to know that the police do overstep their bounds and violate basic rights just because they can. And when one objects they are subject to tazzering, arrest, resisting arrest blah blah blah. Its total BS. Yes there are good cops, but there is also a lot on a power trip. I won't even go near the BS that has resulted here in the US as a result and flow-on effect of the Patriot Act.

I watched a video yesterday of a guy that was parked on the side of the road. He was seriously not doing anything wrong or out of the ordinary. Police pulled up, asked to see ID. The guy asked why. All the cop kept saying was the words 'I'm investigating'. The guy asked several times 'what are you investigating, I'm not doing anything wrong'. Note here: I always believed one didn't have to show ID, and hubby being ex agent agrees, only the Patriot Act has made it so, police state. Anyway, this guy in the car kept saying 'arrest me then because I have rights and I'm not showing you my ID'. He was arrested. His young daughter in the car started screaming, noooooooo. The second police officer held the car door shut so she couldn't get out. When she did, because she was scared as her father was being arrested, she was tackled to the ground. Mean while two other officers arrived and helped keep her down Big men They handcuffed her and she was screaming 'get off me'. I mean #######. This stuff is crazy.

One doesn't always have to be doing something wrong to suffer this kind of sh!te. Evidence is abundant to those with their eyes wide open.

Legally you don't have to show ID, BUT if you are operating a car, you have to show your license, registration and insurance.

So while you are fully within your rights to withhold your ID when law enforcement arrives, they are fully within their rights to arrest you for it and claim it as "resisting arrest."

I'm wondering then how that qualifies as being within your rights to withold your ID if the consequence is that you are arrested and charged with resisting arrest. By that logic, couldn't one say that it is within your rights to commit murder?

I'm sorry. I should've clarified my statement. What I meant was that the police don't have to arrest you. It's up to the discretion of the officer at the time. However, if the officer chooses to arrest you, he or she can do it for not producing the identification.

Not according to the US Supreme Court. You can be arrested for resisting arrest, however they have to be arresting you for something else--people cannot be arrested JUST for not having/not showing ID. (They can, however, be arrested for refusing to give their name.)

That case was pretty recent, perhaps they haven't gotten the memo out yet.

Edited November 17, 2006 by sparkofcreation

[DeadPoolX 9]

Not according to the US Supreme Court. You can be arrested for resisting arrest, however they have to be arresting you for something else--people cannot be arrested JUST for not having/not showing ID. (They can, however, be arrested for refusing to give their name.)

That case was pretty recent, perhaps they haven't gotten the memo out yet.

That could very well be the problem. Sometimes police departments are slow to act upon judicial decisions.

For instance, Deborah Davis (of Denver, Colorado) was forcibly ejected from a bus and arrested for refusing to produce identification when demanded to show it by a security officer. In addition, I've known people who've been taken into custody for as little as saying "no" to showing their ID's, so maybe the word hasn't spread. If the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that you can't be arrested for refusal to produce ID, then these departments have some answering to do.

[I'm Gone 60]

I guess he learned his lesson with a free education from the University of California.

I'm sure after he sues the school it will wind up being a free education.

[DeadPoolX 9]

I guess he learned his lesson with a free education from the University of California.

I'm sure after he sues the school it will wind up being a free education.

I don't know...I'd be pretty uncomfortable attending a university I just recently sued.

[mawilson 2,133]

I'm sorry. I should've clarified my statement. What I meant was that the police don't have to arrest you. It's up to the discretion of the officer at the time. However, if the officer chooses to arrest you, he or she can do it for not producing the identification.

I don't believe there is a requirement in this country to carry identification at all times

(except for non-citizens), so would be the charges?

[aussiewench 9]

I'm sorry. I should've clarified my statement. What I meant was that the police don't have to arrest you. It's up to the discretion of the officer at the time. However, if the officer chooses to arrest you, he or she can do it for not producing the identification.

I don't believe there is a requirement in this country to carry identification at all times

(except for non-citizens), so would be the charges?

Apparently not the case as many are arrested for refusing to show their ID if it is asked for and the officer is supposedly conducting and investigation, even if you have done nothing wrong. Wonder what happened to the Bill of Rights

Edited November 17, 2006 by aussiewench

[zyggy 9]

Campus cops are always a$$holes.

I second that....

[DeadPoolX 9]

I don't believe there is a requirement in this country to carry identification at all times

(except for non-citizens), so would be the charges?

Well, you should be carrying your identification at all times in the event of an emergency. I, for one, never go anywhere without my driver's license -- even if I'm not driving. I also always carry my Student ID card. Not only am I supposed to do this, it also works as a credit/debit/ATM card and if you show it to some businesses, you get a discount. So it's worthwhile to have it on-hand.

Apparently not the case as many are arrested for refusing to show their ID if it is asked for and the officer is supposedly conducting and investigation, even if you have done nothing wrong. Wonder what happened to the Bill of Rights

I think the case is that many police departments are either unaware of the new U.S. Supreme Court ruling (I know I was...), or don't give a damn about it. What it really comes down to is that if the police officer feels like arresting you, whatever you do, do not resist arrest. Do not touch the officer, keep your hands where the officer can see them, and do not attempt to bribe the officer. Let the officer take you in. Do not give the officer any information except name, address and show the officer whatever ID you may have on you at the time. Don't say anything otherwise -- anything you say can be used against you in a court of law. Get an attorney. Be aware your phone call may be tapped, so watch what you say.

I have to assume that if you're arrested, and you haven't done anything to resist arrest and have followed all the rules, the judge will throw the case out. If you've resisted in any way and/or disregarded the rules, then you'll probably be fined and/or receive jail time, depending on the offense. Most of the time, however, I'd bet it'd be a fine.

Campus cops are always a$$holes.

I second that....

My feelings on this is that campus police have an inferiority complex. After all, they're pretty much on the lowest rung of the police ladder. So to combat this, they overcompensate. Maybe my explanation is incorrect and students are just extremely difficult to handle. Whatever the case, it does seem that campus police are overly rude and quick-to-act at times, doesn't it?