This is topic !!!!!!!!!! UCLA student stunned by Taser plans suit !!!!!!!!!! in forum Off-Topic Post, Non Stock Talk at Allstocks.com's Bulletin Board.
UCLA student stunned by Taser plans suit By Stuart Silverstein, Times Staff Writer November 17, 2006
The UCLA student stunned with a Taser by a campus police officer has hired a high-profile civil rights lawyer who plans to file a brutality lawsuit.
The videotaped incident, which occurred after the student refused requests to show his ID card to campus officers, triggered widespread debate on and off campus Thursday about whether use of the Taser was warranted. It was the third in a recent series of local incidents captured on video that raise questions about arrest tactics.
Attorney Stephen Yagman said he plans to file a federal civil rights lawsuit accusing the UCLA police of "brutal excessive force," as well as false arrest. The lawyer also provided the first public account of the Tuesday night incident at UCLA's Powell Library from the student, Mostafa Tabatabainejad, a 23-year-old senior.
He said that Tabatabainejad, when asked for his ID after 11 p.m. Tuesday, declined because he thought he was being singled out because of his Middle Eastern appearance. Yagman said Tabatabainejad is of Iranian descent but is a U.S.-born resident of Los Angeles.
The lawyer said Tabatabainejad eventually decided to leave the library but when an officer refused the student's request to take his hand off him, the student fell limp to the floor, again to avoid participating in what he considered a case of racial profiling. After police started firing the Taser, Tabatabainejad tried to "get the beating, the use of brutal force, to stop by shouting and causing people to watch. Generally, police don't want to do their dirties in front of a lot of witnesses."
He said Tabatabainejad was hit by the Taser five times and suffered "moderate to severe contusions" on his right side.
UCLA officials declined to respond directly to Yagman's statements, saying they still were conducting their internal investigation of the incident.
The university said earlier, however, that Tabatabainejad was asked for his ID as part of a routine nightly procedure to make sure that everyone using the library after 11 p.m. is a student or otherwise authorized to be there. Campus officials have said the long-standing policy was adopted to ensure students' safety.
UCLA also said that Tabatabainejad refused repeated requests by a community service officer and regular campus police to provide identification or to leave. UCLA said the police decided to use the Taser to incapacitate Tabatabainejad only after the student urged other library patrons to join his resistance.
Some witnesses disputed that account, saying that when campus police arrived, Tabatabainejad had begun to walk toward the door.
In a prepared statement released late Thursday, UCLA's interim chancellor, Norman Abrams, urged the public to "withhold judgment" while the campus police department investigates. "I, too, have watched the videos, and I do not believe that one can make a fair judgment regarding the matter from the videos alone. I am encouraged that a number of witnesses have come forward and are participating in the investigation."
Meanwhile, student activists were organizing a midday rally today to protest the incident, and the Southern California office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations called for an independent investigation.
The incident follows the recent announcement that four of the campus police department's nearly 60 full-time sworn officers had won so-called Taser Awards granted by the manufacturer of the device to "law enforcement officers who save a life in the line of duty through extraordinary use of the Taser." The award stemmed from an incident in which officers subdued a patient who allegedly threatened staff at the campus' Neuropsychiatric Hospital with metal scissors.
Jeff Young, assistant police chief, declined to indicate whether any of the honored officers were among the several involved in Tuesday's incident.
Video doesn't show much about what was happening before the taser. The question that needs to be answered is what would have happened if he had simply cooperated. Would he just have been kicked out of the library since he had no ID? He stereotyped himself by immediately saying they were treating him differently because of his ethnicity. He gave them reason to believe he was doing something wrong by not cooperating with them. All he had to do was do as they said from the very beginning. If you're not supposed to be in the library after 11 without an ID then don't be in the library after 11 without an ID. If he had an ID, then show your ID. It's as simple as that.
Don't give other people a reason to mistreat you. If after he had showed an ID they still tried to kick him out for no reason then go right ahead and protest. He gave the police an out by not cooperating with him.
Do I think what the police did was excessive, maybe. The police are allowed to use force that common citizens are not allowed because their job is prevent people from becoming victims. He was obviously yelling and enraged. People make stupid decisions when the adreneline is running high. They took him down by taser to prevent the chance of him using adrenaline fueled force against the officers.
I couldn't see if he was handcuffed when he was on the ground or not. I would assume so. If someone is worth getting tasered then they're probably worth getting handcuffed. In this aspect the cops probably did use excessive force. All they had to do after the initial taser was carry him out even if he was not standing up as requested. No use in tasering someone who is already beaten down.
My point is it all could have been prevented if the kid was just smart enough to show his ID. He is at fault for that. The cops used excessive force after he was cuffed and tasered initially. They're wrong in that aspect. The kid will probably win because of the excessive force, but I will say I don't like the kid because of his stubborn stupidity.
The cops may have stereotyped, but all because you're Iranian doesn't mean you can't go to the library. If you have the correct ID or documents to show you are allowed in the library then show them and beat the cops by legally being allowed to stay there. It's like a little cat walking in front of 10 angry dogs from behind a fence. The cat can be pompous knowing the dogs can't do anything.
The kid probably would win more in court, as well as prison time for the cops if he just cooperated and they still continued with the force. I have no pity for the kid. Matt
Posted by bdgee on :
I'm still looking for someone that is considering whether or not the taser should ever be used by the government, instead of this whining "why didn't he cooperate with the Campus cops" routine to justify or cover up the use of cruel and unusual punishment by the government.
Why didn't the Campus Cops ask anyone else in the library to prove they were students?
Why is it ok for the Cops to "punish" someone that questions their authority, as if so doing were not within their Constitutional right to petition the Government?
If I understand correctly, there were four Campus cops and only one student. Why must a clearly overwhelming force of four to one resort to unusual means to enforce the law "assuming the Campus cops actually believed they were charged with or had a right to physically remove the student and assuming he was not removing himself?
It is time we started insisting that the over anxious egos of our law enforcement personel find some more peaceful methods of getting the public to conform to their wishes or supply us with clear and basic reason for their reaction to their demands, each and every time such an instance occurs.
I have heard "no information" that the Campus Cops had or imagined any "adequate cause" for assuming the student was either dangerous or suspicious or not within his rights. Why not? It is a requirement of the Constitution that even the cops must have such cause!
Where in the constitution does it say that the people are subject to the whim or will of the cops?
Posted by permanentjaun on :
Thanks for saying I was whining. I appreciate it.
The question still stands. Why didn't he cooperate with the cops from the beginning?
The cops didn't ask anyone else because they had their first priority; the student refusing to show he was legally allowed to be there. If he had an ID they would have gone on to the other students. Are you saying they're supposed to ask if a student has ID, they refuse, and they just say "ok, well you're only allowed in here if you have an ID. You don't have an ID but I'll still allow you to stay here." It wouldn't be fair to the students who have paid for their right to be in the library and attend that esteemed university.
What happens when the student has a knife or a gun? No matter how many officers there are versus the one student the weapon is now a very important tool that has shifted the power into the students hands. If you don't like officers using tasers then perhaps you'd like them using billy clubs or guns. I'd rather take a shock and burn than broken bones, possible head injury, or death from a gun. Besides the burn the taser victims are back to normal within serveral hours at most. That can't be said for people taken down by clubs or guns.
You're saying the cops had no reason to take the student down. They did. He refused to cooperate many times and did not produce his ID to prove he was allowed in the library. He can then be assumed to be trespassing. All he needed to do was cooperate and leave. I don't see that in the video.
Like I said though, after the intial taser the cops should have been able to take him out without him being able to walk. They did use excessive force in that sense. They were correct in his initial taser though.
Don't give anyone an out. The student did that when he refused to cooperate. The blame would most surely be on the cops if he had simply showed an ID or left when asked to leave because he had no ID. He gave the cops an out.
Posted by Ace of Spades on :
That's a good question, permanentjaun...
They can ask the 100+ whitnesses...
permanentjaun...You know what those 100+ whitnesses say?
They say he was walking out the door, when the cops first grabbed his arm. You can here on the video in plain english the kid saying he is not resisting arrest and he is leaving...in plain english, that my friend is on the video. What is also on the video is several huge cops, against an unarmed skinny kid. Before taseres what did they do? Just pick up the kid and carry him out. Several cops that have seen the video, said what the cops did was crazy, and was handled badly...
His lawyer actually says why he initialy didn't show ID in one of the clips I posted, And they will answer it in court. The funny thing is, the cops can't say he was resisting arrest, because he wasn't even being arrested, and was never even read his rights...why ? Because he didn't do anything wrong to be arrested for. And even is he was...He was resiting passively and not physicaly, in which case the taser shouldn' have been used. What did cops do before taseres? 3 or 5 cops would simply pick up the skinny kid and carry hime out. The truth is one of the cops has a history of abusing his power...
But The more important question is why didn't he cooperate after he was taserd the first time. The answer is being tasered can leave someone imobile for 15 min...But he was tasered several times. Whitnesses say he was also tasered in the ASS, which is not right and uncalled for.
Whey would a cop tasere the kid in the ASS on purposed ? The same reason they tasered him in 5 times in the first place, and threatened other students, who asked for badge #'s
Even after the kid told the cops he had a medical condition, they kept tasering him. What if he had a Pace Maker ?
If he died in the video because his medical condition, would your opinion change, permanentjaun
Later that night they let the kid go with no charges, just a citation. Why ? Because he didn't do anything to be chared for. But I can't believe they let the kid go, without recievin medical attention after being tasered so many times.
The thing that sticks out the most on the Video is when the students requested the badge # and the cops info, they threatened to taser them...That right there says a lot about what those cops are all about.
All I know is some of those cops are going down for the count...and they won't get back up.
And if one of them do fight their way back up, who cares...The kid will get a nice check.
Posted by permanentjaun on :
Ace of Spades,
The videos on here have the opinion of 1 journalist who "heard" that he was walking out the door. Those 100 witnesses you speak of haven't spoken yet. Don't try to speak for them.
What did they do before tasers? Police officers died from being stabbed and shot by the people they were trying to arrest. The stun gun is an effective weapon because it is nonlethal with, in nearly all cases, no permanant damage.
Why did he not show his ID, because he thought he was being targeted? Show the ID and the confrontation is over. You target yourself when you think you're only being picked out for your ethnicity, as if you're not able to be suspect to laws because of it.
I have not once said that the cops did not use excessive force when they continually tasered him. They will be punished for that. They did have the right to taser him the first time. He was resisting to show ID and was therefore trespassing. That is illegal. Believe it or not, but removing those without ID is for their safety. One of the videos clearly points out the libraries policy of only allowing students past 11 is to prevent strangers and homeless from using the library. This is to keep out criminals, drug dealers, and other various types. How would you like to send your kid to a school which allows possible criminals and drug dealers to be in close proximity to your children late at night? What if he was a rapist stalking a female waiting for her to leave the library after 12 at night. Don't tell me Los Angeles is a safe city to live in. THIS IS WHY HE NEEDS TO SHOW ID!
Again, I'll repeat, I do believe the cops used excessive force once they tasered him more than once. One taser, as you point out, is enough to incapacitate someone for 15 minutes.
Where they taser someone is not inhumane unless they purposefuly tasered him in the genitals or somewhere sensitive such as the eyes. The ass is mainly fat and not as painfully sensitive as other areas of the body. In fact tasering in the ass may have been more humane. It is mainly fat and away from vital organs such as the heart.
He announced he had a medical condition AFTER the first taser. This is why I still back up the police in their initial taser, but not in their subsequent taserings. They used excessive force once they tasered him the 2nd and other times.
They let him off with a citation because they later learned that he was a student. Therefore, he was not trespassing. He did interrupt in the officers duties of effectively scanning the people in the library to see who should and should not be there. If he was not a student then they could have charged him with trespassing. Simple as that. He broke no laws after the fact. If he was a non student he was breaking a law. ALL HE HAD TO DO WAS SHOW AN ID! If he had no ID, leave peacefully from the initial request.
It's the same reason we allow ourselves to be frisked before entering sporting events, concerts, or other major events. We want to keep those with weapons out and keep the rest of us inside safe. I'd like to see you get past the front gate guards and demand you be let in without being frisked. It's the same thing here. The students need to show a form of student ID to prove they're legally allowed to be there. This is to keep the harmful people out and protect the students inside.
Your point about the cops threatening the other students when asked for badge numbers isn't very strong. You're making conflicting points. You saw how everyone was acting. You say it was 4 cops versus 1 little kid and therefore the taser wasn't necessary. Then you protect the students when it was essentially 50 students versus 4 cops. Who has the upper hand then? That is why the cops needed to threaten the students. Their safety was clearly in danger and needed to regain control of the situation. I'm surprised how close the cop at the end allows the one kid to yell in his face. I've seen people maced for less.
I'll say it again. The cops were right in their procedures in their initial tasering. If I get more proof that the kid was leaving at the time of the events then I'll change my position. Right now though, there is no video of that portion and its all "he said she said" that he was leaving. That needs to be proven.
Again, the kid should have just shown ID. I stil have no pity for him.
Posted by bdgee on :
"The question still stands. Why didn't he cooperate with the cops from the beginning?
The cops didn't ask anyone else because they had their first priority; the student refusing to show he was legally allowed to be there."
In other words, according to you, the only reason they asked him for his ID is justified only after the fact and that same excuse justifies beating, torturing, and humiliating him.
That amounts to admitting that they did not have adequate cause to search him or his papers, so the argument that he refused to respond as per their wishes is his right to do according to the Constitution.
In spite of your siding with the cops and willingness to allow them to ignore the law, it is the cops that acted in violation of the law.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The excuse you provide for them attacking him, that he refused to obey the cops (which could only be involked by the cops after they illegally accousted him, by the way) is trumped unless they had prior and independent reason to believe he was in violation of the law before they asked to see his ID (which are among his papers protected by the Constitution), which seems to be more than just a bit of a stretch, since they accousted no one else with a request for ID.
The simple fact is that they acted out of racial prejudice in violation of the Civil Rights act of 1964.
Cops DO NOT HAVE authority to accost whomever they wish with request of a particular person to prove he isn't in violation of the law.
In particular, with respect to trespassing, which is a criminal matter, to allow the police to indiscriminately request of a person, without specific adequate cause to believe that the individual is in violation of the law, is to violate:
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Posted by NaturalResources on :
Another example of "police brutality".
NYPD bullet kills groom on wedding day By ADAM GOLDMAN, Associated Press Writer
NEW YORK - Police opened fire early Saturday on a car full of men driving away from a bachelor party at a strip club, killing the groom on his wedding day in a shooting that drew a furious outcry from family members but little immediate explanation from police.
There was no immediate explanation for what sparked the shooting, which left two other men hospitalized and drew angry protests from family members and the Rev. Al Sharpton. The New York Police Department's chief spokesman, Paul Browne, declined to comment.
I'm with you permanentjaun, just show your id and be on your way, or tell them you have none, if you have nothing to hide all is well, but there's no reason to resist and start a confrontation. Time will tell and the court will make the final judgment, let's wait and see.
Posted by NaturalResources on :
Bdgee,
IMO we are not hearing the whole story, regarding this case. Some states, I'm betting that California is one of them, you can be arrested for refusing to give your name or show ID to a police officer if they request them.
Know Your Rights: What to Do If You're Stopped by the Police
quote:Originally posted by NaturalResources: Another example of "police brutality".
NYPD bullet kills groom on wedding day By ADAM GOLDMAN, Associated Press Writer
NEW YORK - Police opened fire early Saturday on a car full of men driving away from a bachelor party at a strip club, killing the groom on his wedding day in a shooting that drew a furious outcry from family members but little immediate explanation from police.
There was no immediate explanation for what sparked the shooting, which left two other men hospitalized and drew angry protests from family members and the Rev. Al Sharpton. The New York Police Department's chief spokesman, Paul Browne, declined to comment.
NaturalResources, you have passed judgment without giving the police their day in court, (Another example of "police brutality) I will let those qualified pass judgment, we don't even know what transpired.
Posted by bdgee on :
That some states have passed such a law does no make it a crime.
Even if there is such a law as you describe and should the federal courts allow that ignoring of the Bill of Rights, it remains the case that an officer of the law may not act even within a law without adequate cause to believe a person is in violation of the law and there is absolutely no reason given for the request by the Campus Cops other than a whim or that he didn't "look" racially suitable, nither of which is legal or adequate as a basis for envolking police power.
You provide a link with some good suggestions, but they are not statements or interpretatiosn of law, just naturtal "submissive" beharior techniques to avoid unnecessarilly irritation the police. In this case the police were obviously already angered, apparantly by racial prejudice.....I doubt anything the student could have or might have done would have altered the attitude of the Campus Cops.
(There is nothing any state, any state's legislature, or Congress can do, short of amending the Constitution, that negates the provisions of the Constitution and that inclusdes passing "laws" that are in Contradiction to the Constitution.)
Posted by bdgee on :
Had it been me that was asked for an ID, I would have shown one, not out of respect for the law or to avoid a conflict, but simply because it would have been an almost instinctive reaction.
When I am in a library I am always seriously involved in some question or consideration that is on my mind and which is paramount. I will willingly submit to about any request to get rid of anything or anybody that distracts from that goal.
But that doesn't mean that I expect others to be so engrossed or to accept the trampling of their rights or person, even if that offense is at the hands of the police.
Posted by permanentjaun on :
They didn't beat him. They didn't humiliate him. They didn't torture him. I haven't seen any reports of the police striking the victim. You're really stretching the definition of torture.
You could describe any police act as torture. Example, man is holding a knife and won't put it down. The police mace him in the eyes. It's painful so then it must be torture. Wrong. They used just force.
Same with how you say they humiliated him. I didn't see any of the students laughing at him. The students held rallies on behalf of him and nearly took on the cops for him. That wasn't exactly humiliating. Under that definition of humiliating then you could say anyone getting taken away by cops in handcuffs is being purposefuly humiliated by the police. They did it to themselves. I'd say it was the police who were being humiliated. So much so that the students had no problem asking such a person of power to produce their numbers.
I don't understand what you're trying to say when you say, "In other words, according to you, the only reason they asked him for his ID is justified only after the fact and that same excuse justifies beating, torturing, and humiliating him."
The police were justified in asking for his ID. They need to check everyones ID to make sure there is no one there that isn't allowed in there, i.e. nonstudents. The police were justified to taser and remove him when he failed to produce an ID AND failed to cooperate with leaving the library. Watch the fox news video, they clearly state the library has postings that ONLY students are allowed in the library after 11 pm and must have a student ID. They have every right and reason to ask someone for their ID.
You wasted your time posting the amendments. Do the police have the right to search someone without reason. NO. So the kid was legally allowed to say no I will not produce an ID. In doing so he is not suspect to being searched, BUT he MUST leave the library since he failed to prove he was legally allowed there. This means he wouldn't have to be searched, but he wouldn't be allowed to stay there either.
You also do not know that they didn't search anyone else for ID. They could have checked everyones ID after the video was stopped. I also wouldn't blame the cops for not checking ID after such a scene. The students were probably still too enraged to cooperate with police and it wouldn't be safe.
I can't believe I'm having this debate with you. You don't even know how to analyze the amendments. Amendment V is an amendment that states no one shall be imprisoned for a crime without first being tried. Nor can they be tried twice for the same crime, i.e. double jeopardy, nor be forced to be used as a witness against themselves ("I plead the fifth"), nor removed of life, liberty, and property, imprisoned, without going through the complete process of law. Nor shall property be taken for public use without being compensated for it, i.e. emminent domain. The fifth amendment is for the process after being arrested, not while being arrested.
The fifth amendment has absolutely nothing to do with what you are talking about.
Don't try to throw amendments at me, especially ones that have nothing to do with the topic. The kid was wrong in not producing an ID even though he had one. He was being stupid. The cops were correct in their procedure up until they tasered him a second time. They can and will be held responsible for excessive force for their 2nd and subsequent taserings.
Posted by NaturalResources on :
Bdgee, look at it from the security guard's point of view. A suspicious 25ish middle-eastern male in a student library at UCLA that refuses to show ID or identify himself, breaking the posted rules by even being there, who then tries to "flee the scene" after police repeatedly question him....
I agree with permanentjuan,
quote:" I have not once said that the cops did not use excessive force when they continually tasered him. They will be punished for that. They did have the right to taser him the first time. He was resisting to show ID and was therefore trespassing. That is illegal. Believe it or not, but removing those without ID is for their safety. One of the videos clearly points out the libraries policy of only allowing students past 11 is to prevent strangers and homeless from using the library. This is to keep out criminals, drug dealers, and other various types. How would you like to send your kid to a school which allows possible criminals and drug dealers to be in close proximity to your children late at night? What if he was a rapist stalking a female waiting for her to leave the library after 12 at night. Don't tell me Los Angeles is a safe city to live in. THIS IS WHY HE NEEDS TO SHOW ID!
Again, I'll repeat, I do believe the cops used excessive force once they tasered him more than once. One taser, as you point out, is enough to incapacitate someone for 15 minutes."
Posted by permanentjaun on :
Not even the fact that he's middle-eastern. If you don't have an ID you're not allowed to be there. Simple as that. LA isn't a city to be messing around with and letting anyone go where they want. It's full of drug dealers, rapists, murderers and the same. It's not a school in Rhode Island.
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
Did they go overboard... absolutely.
But I gotta admit that other than the multiple taser shots I have no problem with what happened there.
Perhaps someone racially prejudiced reported this person to the cops without cause. Could be. But that is not the fault of the police officers. They are required to ask I.D. of all students in the library after 11pm. I have had similar requirements when I worked on a college campus. Not that uncommon, they were just doing their job.
Once they approached him the man refused to show I.D. and tried to walk away. Given that, they had to try to detain him until identification and his activities could be accounted for.
They try to detain him and he suddenly drops to the ground and starts screaming and yelling about "This is your Patriot Act in action!"?
Very likely these cops (real cops or college rent-a cops?) thought they had an actual terrorist on their hands and it scared the sh** out of em.
Were his actions worth multiple taser shots? No...but I freely admit this guys actions would have freaked me out a bit had a been wearing the uniform then.
BF
Posted by bdgee on :
"Bdgee, look at it from the security guard's point of view. A suspicious 25ish middle-eastern male in a student library at UCLA that refuses to show ID or identify himself, breaking the posted rules by even being there, who then tries to "flee the scene" after police repeatedly question him...."
The cops have no point of view that can be part of this or any other act of law enforcement!
That isn't a personal opinion. That is the requirememt of the Constitution and the law.
Adequate cause, not personal opionion, is required BEFORE the police may exercise police power.
And nowhere is there an exception in the law that says the police may take action because someone is "A suspicious 25ish middle-eastern male in a student library'!!!!!!
Posted by bdgee on :
quote:Originally posted by permanentjaun: They didn't beat him. They didn't humiliate him.
I can't believe I'm having this debate with you. You don't even know how to analyze the amendments. Amendment V is an amendment that states no one shall be imprisoned for a crime without first being tried. Nor can they be tried twice for the same crime, i.e. double jeopardy, nor be forced to be used as a witness against themselves ("I plead the fifth"), nor removed of life, liberty, and property, imprisoned, without going through the complete process of law. Nor shall property be taken for public use without being compensated for it, i.e. emminent domain. The fifth amendment is for the process after being arrested, not while being arrested.
The fifth amendment has absolutely nothing to do with what you are talking about.
Don't try to throw amendments at me, especially ones that have nothing to do with the topic. The kid was wrong in not producing an ID even though he had one. He was being stupid. The cops were correct in their procedure up until they tasered him a second time. They can and will be held responsible for excessive force for their 2nd and subsequent taserings.
You need to learn some appropriate usages that reach beyond your obvious politically biased overstatements of specificity of a few statements:
They did beat him.
They did humiliate him.
They did torture him.
And I am not speaking of or in the sense of the Chaney/Rumsfield abominations of the usage of the word torture that they put forth to make you right wingers think you have a legal or honoirable position after the abuses in Iraq and elsewhere and to cover their illegal actions.
Yours seems to be a quite simple minded reading of the Constitution, allowing only those results that your rightwing leanings want to come from the Constitution.
It doesn't allow such interpretation. To to paraphrase Hogo Blacks explanation, When the Constitution says "no" it meams no, not sometimes no and not maybe.
Indeed the 5th Amendment does indeed have something to do with this. it clearly states therein that
"No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself...:
and to require that a person supply proof that he is not in violation of trespass laws is a requirement that he bear witness against himself.
Posted by permanentjaun on :
Show me the video or news report saying the officers beat the victim. Tell me how the student was humiliated and tortured. Tell me how he was tortured. The cops used excessive force, not torture. If a cop shoots a suspect in the leg is that torture? No. It may be excessive force. It's not torture. Even Rodney King didn't file claims of torture. He fought in court for excessive police brutality. This is all besides the point. The point is that the cops were correct in their intial use of force, but not the use thereafter.
You should be careful who you call a right winger. I am not a right winger so you're only alienating yourself from those on the left, who are supposed to be on your side.
In fact it is your analysis of the 5th amendment that is wrong. Using your right to not bear witness against yourself is only applicable in court. The way you're analyzing it you would be saying that the police are not allowed to check ID's and visa's at US Borders.
If you can produce an ID at the border to prove citizenship then you are allowed in. If you're not, they turn you around. Why do I have to prove I'm a US citizen to be allowed in? I'm not an alien. I know I'm legal. Why do I have to tell prove myself to an officer? To keep non-US citizens out. To keep drug trafficers out. I could go on.
The kid needed to prove that he was a UCLA student to stay in the library. If he can't he is asked to leave just like anyone else without an ID. All he had to do was produce an ID. He did not. He did not leave. The officers are in their right to use force to remove him. I'll say again, I do believe they used excessive force after the initial taser.
quote:Originally posted by bdgee:
quote:Originally posted by permanentjaun: They didn't beat him. They didn't humiliate him.
I can't believe I'm having this debate with you. You don't even know how to analyze the amendments. Amendment V is an amendment that states no one shall be imprisoned for a crime without first being tried. Nor can they be tried twice for the same crime, i.e. double jeopardy, nor be forced to be used as a witness against themselves ("I plead the fifth"), nor removed of life, liberty, and property, imprisoned, without going through the complete process of law. Nor shall property be taken for public use without being compensated for it, i.e. emminent domain. The fifth amendment is for the process after being arrested, not while being arrested.
The fifth amendment has absolutely nothing to do with what you are talking about.
Don't try to throw amendments at me, especially ones that have nothing to do with the topic. The kid was wrong in not producing an ID even though he had one. He was being stupid. The cops were correct in their procedure up until they tasered him a second time. They can and will be held responsible for excessive force for their 2nd and subsequent taserings.
You need to learn some appropriate usages that reach beyond your obvious politically biased overstatements of specificity of a few statements:
They did beat him.
They did humiliate him.
They did torture him.
And I am not speaking of or in the sense of the Chaney/Rumsfield abominations of the usage of the word torture that they put forth to make you right wingers think you have a legal or honoirable position after the abuses in Iraq and elsewhere and to cover their illegal actions.
Yours seems to be a quite simple minded reading of the Constitution, allowing only those results that your rightwing leanings want to come from the Constitution.
It doesn't allow such interpretation. To to paraphrase Hogo Blacks explanation, When the Constitution says "no" it meams no, not sometimes no and not maybe.
Indeed the 5th Amendment does indeed have something to do with this. it clearly states therein that
"No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself...:
and to require that a person supply proof that he is not in violation of trespass laws is a requirement that he bear witness against himself.
Posted by Highway on :
I think he was just looking for a lawsuit(MONEY). That, or just tring open up the gates for the bad guys.
Hell I'll be glad to get tasered, alot, for a million or two...
Posted by permanentjaun on :
Hell for a couple hundred I'm sure a lot of people would do it. The pain is temporary.
Posted by Highway on :
If the guy was packing heat, or even had an AK47 stashed some place, got thru and opened fire, everybody would be saying why didn't they taser the man when he was tring to get in?
With all the school shootings the last few years and all...
Posted by Hannibull on :
quote:Originally posted by Highway: If the guy was packing heat, or even had an AK47 stashed some place, got thru and opened fire, everybody would be saying why didn't they taser the man when he was tring to get in?
that's a very paranoid and dangerous way of thinking though, it would justify just about any action
Posted by andrew on :
For a few million you can tase the hell out of me as long as you want. lol
Posted by Highway on :
With all the school shootings the last few years and all...
Something as simple like showing your student I.D., following security procedures, isn't just "any action". It doesn't seem like they were asking for too much.
Posted by NaturalResources on :
quote:Originally posted by andrew: For a few million you can tase the hell out of me as long as you want. lol
Posted by MoneyMoneyMoney on :
LOL, tase him again!!!
This is NO torture. Check out Vietnam victims and their experiences to find out a little more about torture and tactics.
Posted by andrew on :
quote:Originally posted by Gordon Bennett: I'll do it for free, andrew!
quote:Originally posted by andrew: For a few million you can tase the hell out of me as long as you want. lol
Thanks Gordo.
Posted by Ace of Spades on :
Some of you are saying that what if he had a gun, or what about all the school shootings...and he should have shown his I.D.
Your missing the point.
There are strict rules about when cops use tasers.
The student didn't break any law, and was not a physical threat, he was lying limp and passively resisting.
And those of you who are saying what about the school shootings, and what if he had a gun...
The kid was on the ground limp when he was tasered and was not a threat, just lying there. There were several cops that searched him and paded him down. So the cops weren't worried about the kid being armed.
They were just on a power trip, which you can tell by the dialog. They kept saying stand up or you'll get tasered again. The kid was just limp and not resisting, and they new he had no weapon from the begining, so that notion can go out the window. They were just playing with him. One cop inappropriately tasered him on the ass, which will be testified in court. You can hear the kid saying I'm not resisiting, I said I'll leave.
Three cops could have easily picked the kid up, but instead chose to keep tasering him even after he was in cuffs and they new he had no weapon, and was not physicaly a threat.
Oh and you guys forgot to think about something...Don't you think one of the biggest University libraries would have their own security cameras ? You bet they do, and what ever isn't on that 7 min phone cam, will be on the Library's Cameras, Which is why this high profile lawyer from New York, believes the kid and whitnesses about this whole situation...The dialog on and everything on the phone video, and what will be revealed on the Libraries on Security Cameras.
Posted by *Mag* on :
WHY SHOULD WE STILL BE CONCERNED ABOUT MAY 4, 1970 AT KENT STATE?
In Robert McNamara's (1995) book, "In Retrospect:The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam" is a way to begin is an illustration of the this process. In it he says that United States policy towards Vietnam was "... terribly wrong and we owe it to future generations to explain why."
The May 4 shootings at Kent State need to be remembered for several reasons. First, the shootings have come to symbolize a great American tragedy which occurred at the height of the Vietnam War era, a period in which the nation found itself deeply divided both politically and culturally. The poignant picture of Mary Vecchio kneeling in agony over Jeffrey Miller's body, for example, will remain forever as a reminder of the day when the Vietnam War came home to America. If the Kent State shootings will continue to be such a powerful symbol, then it is certainly important that Americans have a realistic view of the facts associated with this event. Second, May 4 at Kent State and the Vietnam War era remain controversial even today, and the need for healing continues to exist. Healing will not occur if events are either forgotten or distorted, and hence it is important to continue to search for the truth behind the events of May 4th at Kent State. Third, and most importantly, May h at Kent State should be remembered in order that we can learn from the mistakes of the past. The Guardsmen in their signed statement at the end of the civil trials recognized that better ways have to be found to deal with these types of confrontations. This has probably already occurred in numerous situations where law enforcement officials have issued a caution to their troops to be careful because "we don't want another Kent State." Insofar as this has happened, lessons have been learned, and the deaths of four young Kent State students have not been in vain. Posted by Highway on :
Not saying they didn't go above and beyond in the short video I saw, they should have just hauled him off and done without the show. but he did seem like he was either tring to piss 'em off, or looking for a lawsuit to me...
Posted by bdgee on :
quote:Originally posted by permanentjaun: Show me the video or news report saying the officers beat the victim. Tell me how the student was humiliated and tortured. Tell me how he was tortured. The cops used excessive force, not torture. If a cop shoots a suspect in the leg is that torture? No. It may be excessive force. It's not torture. Even Rodney King didn't file claims of torture. He fought in court for excessive police brutality. This is all besides the point. The point is that the cops were correct in their intial use of force, but not the use thereafter.
You should be careful who you call a right winger. I am not a right winger so you're only alienating yourself from those on the left, who are supposed to be on your side.
In fact it is your analysis of the 5th amendment that is wrong. Using your right to not bear witness against yourself is only applicable in court. The way you're analyzing it you would be saying that the police are not allowed to check ID's and visa's at US Borders.
If you can produce an ID at the border to prove citizenship then you are allowed in. If you're not, they turn you around. Why do I have to prove I'm a US citizen to be allowed in? I'm not an alien. I know I'm legal. Why do I have to tell prove myself to an officer? To keep non-US citizens out. To keep drug trafficers out. I could go on.
The kid needed to prove that he was a UCLA student to stay in the library. If he can't he is asked to leave just like anyone else without an ID. All he had to do was produce an ID. He did not. He did not leave. The officers are in their right to use force to remove him. I'll say again, I do believe they used excessive force after the initial taser.
quote:Originally posted by bdgee:
quote:Originally posted by permanentjaun: They didn't beat him. They didn't humiliate him.
I can't believe I'm having this debate with you. You don't even know how to analyze the amendments. Amendment V is an amendment that states no one shall be imprisoned for a crime without first being tried. Nor can they be tried twice for the same crime, i.e. double jeopardy, nor be forced to be used as a witness against themselves ("I plead the fifth"), nor removed of life, liberty, and property, imprisoned, without going through the complete process of law. Nor shall property be taken for public use without being compensated for it, i.e. emminent domain. The fifth amendment is for the process after being arrested, not while being arrested.
The fifth amendment has absolutely nothing to do with what you are talking about.
Don't try to throw amendments at me, especially ones that have nothing to do with the topic. The kid was wrong in not producing an ID even though he had one. He was being stupid. The cops were correct in their procedure up until they tasered him a second time. They can and will be held responsible for excessive force for their 2nd and subsequent taserings.
You need to learn some appropriate usages that reach beyond your obvious politically biased overstatements of specificity of a few statements:
They did beat him.
They did humiliate him.
They did torture him.
And I am not speaking of or in the sense of the Chaney/Rumsfield abominations of the usage of the word torture that they put forth to make you right wingers think you have a legal or honoirable position after the abuses in Iraq and elsewhere and to cover their illegal actions.
Yours seems to be a quite simple minded reading of the Constitution, allowing only those results that your rightwing leanings want to come from the Constitution.
It doesn't allow such interpretation. To to paraphrase Hogo Blacks explanation, When the Constitution says "no" it meams no, not sometimes no and not maybe.
Indeed the 5th Amendment does indeed have something to do with this. it clearly states therein that
"No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself...:
and to require that a person supply proof that he is not in violation of trespass laws is a requirement that he bear witness against himself.
You keep trying to restrict the possible usages to exactly what you want rather than what is the actual and accepted usage of "beat", "torture", and "humiliate". The language doesn't work that way.
For example, when one cheches the dictionary for the word "beat", it turns out there is not any assumption of whipping or lashing, as you are insisting. There we learn that the first and primary usage of the word "beat" is
" to strike violently or forcefully and repeatedly."
The student was clearly repeatedly struck violently with a taser, i.e., he was beaten.
Then too, just exactly where are you getting ANY verification that the Campus Cops had ANY adequate cause for accosting the student? All the evidece indicates they did so purely and only because they believed he looked like an Arab.
I think you are showing a tad of racial prejudice yourself and way more than a tad of the sort of prejucice bad cops have for what they call "civilians".
Posted by permanentjaun on :
Wow bdgee. You are really stretching the definition of beating. "to strike violently or forcefully and repeatedly." The cops tasered him not beat him. If the cops had literally hit the victim with the taser itself then it would be beating. They did not. They tasered him. When you taser someone you don't beat them with it. You hold it to their skin and electrocute them. I can't believe you are even trying to argue with me on that point.
"Then too, just exactly where are you getting ANY verification that the Campus Cops had ANY adequate cause for accosting the student? All the evidece indicates they did so purely and only because they believed he looked like an Arab."
No. I mentioned nothing about him being an arab. You have just now. How dare you accuse me of being a racist. You are really crossing lines that you shouldn't be.
Here is why the cops had reason to physically remove him. Library policy clearly states that only students with ID's are allowed in the library after 11 pm. When asked for an ID he would not show the ID. Therefore, by campus rules he must leave the library. He was trespassing. They have every reason to remove him from the library so that the safety of UCLA's students is protected. Every year women are raped on campus' across the country. Not just a few campus', all of them. They don't always make national headlines, but it's the truth.
When someone does not have ID they must leave. Those are the rules. Plain and simple. I should have said this earlier since we do not know the whole situation. If they had him handcuffed already by the time they tasered him the first time then I don't agree with the tasering. I will assume he was not handcuffed yet since he was still yelling for the officers to not touch him.
When someone who must be removed from a facility is obviously enraged and yelling for officers to not touch him then officers can not take chances with them. People make stupid decisions when adrenaline is flowing and even usually level headed people will lash out in situations such as this.
The police had every right to taser and subdue the person the first time. I'll state again that the subsequent taserings were excessive force.
Ace of Spades this reply is for your post as well. The video doesn't show if the kid was on the ground at the time of the first tasering. My next sentence is based on the idea that he was not already handcuffed. He was rightfully tasered considering the rage that the kid was obviously displaying. He needed to be subdued.
"I think you are showing a tad of racial prejudice yourself and way more than a tad of the sort of prejucice bad cops have for what they call "civilians".
I still can't believe you said that bdgee; even more than you defining electrocution as beating. Not once did I say the cops were right in their procedure because he was Arab. In fact, my reply to NaturalResources when he mentioned that the man was middle-eastern is as follows -
"Not even the fact that he's middle-eastern. If you don't have an ID you're not allowed to be there. Simple as that. LA isn't a city to be messing around with and letting anyone go where they want. It's full of drug dealers, rapists, murderers and the same. It's not a school in Rhode Island."
Meaning, I based my decision not by his ethnicity but by the situation. Unidentified male refusing to give ID, enraged in the library after 11 pm and therefore trespassing unless ID is shown. He must be removed. He must be handled in a manner as to protect the students in the library and the officers safety. Minimal force should be used to remove the persons. Tasering is one of the safest ways to bring someone down. If it's dangerous, why do people volunteer to get tasered for the news? I don't see anyone volunteering to get hit with a club or shot.
Criminals do still have rights. He will win in court because the cops did use excessive force after they tasered him the first time. If he was handcuffed at the time of the first tasering then the first tasering will also be categorized as excessive force.
They didn't beat him. They didn't torture him. They didn't humiliate him. They used excessive force in removing an unidentified, enraged male from a facility which he was not allowed to stay in. Simple as that. Don't you dare try to say I'm a racist twice.
Posted by Ace of Spades on :
I understand where your comming from, permanentjaun
At least in this case, the Kid is still alright.
I have no doubt that The Security Cameras in the Library caught everything on tape as well.
Between the Library's Security Cam and the Phone's Cam...This will be very interesting in Court.
Posted by bdgee on :
"Wow bdgee. You are really stretching the definition of beating."
No, I'm not stretching the "definition" of beating. I simply supplied you with the preferred and most common (over 50% in this case) usage of the word from the dictionary.
If you differ with that preferred usage, it is you that is stretching, not me.
I can see what you want to be the case and can sympatiize with your wish to declare the police, in general, as heros and good guys, but that isn't a fact. After all, they are representatives of us.
But that isn't realistic. They are a visciously prejudiced and angry group that wants to define everything in the simplist terms to make thier lot easier and legal.
Their propensity to refer to everyone not in law enforcement is a give-away. How many times have i found them declaring they are not enforcing "civil" law and therefore have powers beyond those specifically stated in the Constitution. I even found a big city police academyt was teaching that balogna in its academy, i.e., "this is not civil law", then a quick look at marshal law, implying to the cadets that policxe power means the power of Marshal law.
It's dangerous to EVER allow that sort of illogical and abuse of the language get into the head of a cop who wants the easiest and simplest route to what he chooses to believe to be the law.
NOT ALL COPS ARE BAD, but the practice of accepting bad law (however well meaning) by any cop leads to making them all bad cops.
Posted by permanentjaun on :
You missed the entire point.
I didn't disagree that beating is defined as striking someone repeatedly. What I asked was you actually think putting a taser to someones skin and shocking them is beating? When someone is put to death by the electric chair, are they beat to death too? No, they're electrocuted.
At what point in my posts have I ever called the cops heroes and good guys? I have repeatedly stated that they used excessive force. I have even now stated that if the kid was handcuffed at the time of the first tasering then that was excessive force as well.
The police were correct in their initial use of power if he was not hancuffed at the time of the first tasering.
"It's dangerous to EVER allow that sort of illogical and abuse of the language get into the head of a cop who wants the easiest and simplest route to what he chooses to believe to be the law.
It doesn't matter what the cops define it as. If they have broken the law they will be tried and found guilty just like everyone else. They will be found guilty for excessive force, not beating. You can't twist words around like that. It would be like you saying its not stealing, its borrowing. It's not murder, its assisted suicide. It's not arson, I was setting off fireworks for the community.
When are you going to respond to the situation the student actually presented? If the cops knew he was a student then they would not have acted in that manner.
The student didn't present himself in that manner though. He was an illegally trespassing unidentified male that was severely enraged and uncooperative with the officers. Was he someone waiting for a woman to leave so he could rape her late at night on the streets of LA? Was he a drug dealer, possibly even having a bad trip considering his rage? Was he a homeless person looking to use the library as his home? Was he in a gang and waiting for someone to leave so he could beat them or kill them?
These are the scenerios that must be handled. When someone doesn't identify themselves and then becomes furious with rage you don't assume, "oh he's just a nice student looking to study in the library." That isn't a logical conclusion to come to.
You don't watch someone standing on a street corner for hours in a bad part of town and assume they're just having a tough time hailing a cab. All the kid had to do was show his ID and cooperate. He did not. Therefore the cops must assume the situation is more than just some student being uncooperative.
You tell me how the cops could have come to the conclusion that he was just a nice student looking to study. I don't see many students lashing out in fury in libraries. I also don't know many students that don't have ID's since their ID's are their lifeblood at colleges. They use it to get meals at the cafeteria, open the outer doors to their dorms, get them into sporting events, allows them to check out books from the library, and allows them to stay in the library past 11 pm. An ID is an important tool for students on campus.
Open your eyes. You're looking at the situation after the fact when you know now he is a student. The situation was completely different at the time of the incident.
Posted by Repoman75 on :
Bdgee is the reason why we are entering the twighlight of Pax Americana...
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
Agree on one point Bdgee. Never forget that an officer is just a regular joe dressed in blue. Some of em are really there because they feel they can make a difference, some of em are there because they like the power trip of having a gun and telling people what to do. For the majority of em though life just drifted that direction and they are there to pick up a paycheck just like everybody else.
Also is good to remember that these men and women live in a different world. They deal with the crap that you and I walk away from, rubberneck for, and throw shoes out the window because of. It tends to jade the view quite quickly.
I remember a newbie EMS worker on a team responding to an auto accident not too long ago. On scene the guy was very obviously dead but the team lead had the newbie doing CPR on him for over 20 minutes while the rest of the scene was cataloged. To the outsider it could be seen as cruel or disrespectful. The team leads response "He gotta have practice somehow."
Divorce rate for jailers is over 65% Main reasons for leaving a position as a dispatcher: depression and stress in that order.
Posted by bdgee on :
"I didn't disagree that beating is defined as striking someone repeatedly. What I asked was you actually think putting a taser to someones skin and shocking them is beating?"
Whether or not you agree with the dictionary speaks of your intent, not mine.
And yes, i do indeed that repeatedly striking a person with a taser is beating that person....I need only refer to the preferred usage of "beat in the dictionary: :
"beat"
" to strike violently or forcefully and repeatedly."
I do very much agree with:
"these men and women live in a different world. They deal with the crap that you and I walk away from ... because .. it tends to jade the view quite quickly."
Quickly and askew, so that they come to think they are not a part of the general society which they derogatorily refer to as "civilians" and which they come to believe are made up of and of the same moral character as the riff-raff they are forced to deal with.
Once that point is reached, they become sort of like a secret society, believing in authority via possession of moral superiority that enables them to interpret the Laws and the Constitution so as to make their new judgement unquestionable and appropriate to any situation.
Posted by permanentjaun on :
Wow. I even repeated myself that I don't disagree with the definition of what beating is. They were NOT struck by the taser itself. When you are shot by a gun you are not beat by the gun. You are shot by a bullet. You are beat by a gun if someone physically takes the gun and hits you with it.
The same goes with the taser. When you are tasered you are not beat by the taser. You are electrocuted. You are beat by the taser if someone physically takes the taser device and hits you with it. The police did not hit the kid with it. They tasered him with electricity.
"Quickly and askew, so that they come to think they are not a part of the general society which they derogatorily refer to as "civilians" and which they come to believe are made up of and of the same moral character as the riff-raff they are forced to deal with."
In fact police officers are not part of general society, just like how a soldier is not a civilian. Police officers are licensed by the state they serve to act in ways civilians, i.e. non police officers, are not allowed to act. Common citizens are not allowed to stop speeding motorists. Common citizens are not allowed to fire weapons in public unless in self defense. Common citizens can not investigate crimes. Common citizens can not arrest anyone. Do you see where I am going with this?
Officers are not general society. They have been licensed to have certain responsibilities above what common citizens do not have. Does this make them a "secret society?" Come on. The police officers will be tried for their actions and penalties distributed among them. They will answer for their actions of excessive force.
Are they interpreting the laws as they see fit? No, that is the job of the judicial system. Their job is to apprehend who they see as breaking the law. Which brings me back to my point WHICH YOU STILL HAVE NOT ADDRESSED!
How did the kid present himself? Was he acting in a calm cool collect manner such that the police could handle him as a student? Or was he handling himself as an unidentified male acting in a furious rage and being uncooperative with police?
You still haven't addressed the point that the police were acting with the safety of theirs and the other students. What if he wasn't a student and was a rapist, gang banner, drug dealer?
You are making your decisions after the fact that he is known to be a student now. THE SITUATION WAS MUCH DIFFERENT AT THE TIME OF THE INCIDENT. He presented himself as a nonstudent and should have been handled as such. Even then as a nonstudent all he had to do was cooperate by standing up and leaving. Instead he decided to yell furiously at the police and not cooperate with their demands to stand up.
The cops had reason to remove him with force.
Posted by bdgee on :
The cops have no business ignoring the Constitution even if they want to believe they are "protecteng themselves or their kind and the fact 5thqt they singled out a racially distinct and different individual tells us that they wee acting out of bias and prejudice.
Even so, they had no justifiable "cause" as is required by the Constitution to single out that particular person. (And I have indeed previously address that particular point.)
The situation at the time and before the time was that the cops had no reason, other than prejudice, to single out the victim they did.
Left alone and not threatened improperly by the misaction of the Campus Cops, there was no "failure to cooperate". That so called "failure", as you insist it was, could not have existed had the cops not acted without adequate cause.
Then, according to witnesses, the student was removing himself. (The Cops do not constitute unbiased witnesses.)
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
I Pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
I think the crux of the matter revolves around the question...
Were the cops acting under the guidelines of the university to check I.D. for all users of the library after 11pm?
If so then the initial contact between the cops and the student is valid.
It may be contested that the requirement to produce I.D after 11pm is unconstitutional but then that is the university rules at fault...not the officers.
Regardless of the terminology used to describe the multiple tazer shocks I don't believe anyone here thinks such actions were warranted. On that point alone a lawsuit is reasonable and I hope he pursues and wins.
Having a security background, and knowing the uncertainty such encounters have, I personally have some sympathy for the initial action of the officers. However I do not hesitate to say that conduct after initial contact went beyond the bounds of legitimate action and should be addressed and rectified.
A free market is never truly free. The middle class is nowhere near the middle. An equal share is never truly equal. And justice is not truly blind, but is color blind and blinded by colors and sees in shades of grey and brown.
Imperfect structures set up by an imperfect species. To be lamented but likely never changed.
Be good to each other.
The Bigfoot
Posted by permanentjaun on :
You are the one saying they singled him out for his race. Is he supposed to be excluded from laws because he is a muslim american? No. Therefore they have the right to ask him, just like any other student, for his ID.
You are not reading my posts. I didn't ask you to address a point of why he was first addressed and asked for his ID. My point was why the cops used force to remove him. WHICH YOU STILL HAVE NOT ADDRESSED.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE REFUSING TO SHOW ID. THEREFORE ILLEGALLY TRESPASSING. YELLING IN A FURIOUS RAGE AT POLICE OFFICERS AND REFUSING TO COOPERATE WITH OFFICERS. NEEDED TO BE SUBDUED
"The situation at the time and before the time was that the cops had no reason, other than prejudice, to single out the victim they did."
Again you're the one bringing race and ethnicity into this. They had every reason to ask the kid for his ID. They needed to make sure he was allowed to stay in the library. It's posted library policy that you must have an ID past 11.
"Left alone and not threatened improperly by the misaction of the Campus Cops, there was no "failure to cooperate". That so called "failure", as you insist it was, could not have existed had the cops not acted without adequate cause."
This is the lamest part of your last post. That's like saying a drug dealer should not be accused of murdering a cop because he wouldn't have done it if the cop didn't approach him to arrest him for drug dealing. Therefore, it was the cops fault he got murdered and not the drug dealers. Give it up. You need to treat officers with the respect and dignity they deserve. This is to honor the duty they have undertaken and so you don't get involved in stuff like this. If you're not a criminal, don't act like one. Why should you act in that manner against the police when they are there for your protection unless you are doing something wrong or illegal?
No, you still have not addressed my point. How did the kid handle himself with the cops? Was he calm, cool and collected? No. Did he at any time identify who he was and what he was doing there? No. Did he show his student ID? No. Was he yelling furiously at police officers? Yes.
How do you want officers to handle the situation differently such that the lives of other officers who are in similar situations but the person being arrested actually has a knife and is willing to use it on police?
What part of the constitution clearly states an officer is not allowed to ask for a students ID when there are postings around a library that say a student has to have an ID after 11 pm? You're being ridiculous trying to bring the constitution into this. Are security checkpoints not allowed to ask for ID? If we refuse to show ID they can't touch us, remove us, or deny access to us? Get over it.
If you want a world where we don't allow officers to ask people for ID then you can go living with your family not knowing if the person next to you has a gun, is there to do homework or stalk their victim, is writing a report on Tchaikovsky or waiting for their drug dealer, studying American economic policy during the 50's or waiting for someone to leave their laptop unattended so they can steal it.
You are saying all security should be dropped. You no longer want our possessions at airports to be x-rayed. What right do those people have looking through my possessions? You don't think we should allow border patrol to ask for ID when people enter this country. Why do I have to prove to you I'm a legal citizen?
Get over it. You have to show your drivers license to write a check. Asking for ID is a common practice across this country that even non police officers are given. Ever try to buy alcohol when you look 17? No ID, No Sale.
You saying they weren't legally allowed to ask for his ID is a lame reason to excuse his behavior towards the police. Would they have tasered him if he was calm and cool with the police? We'll never know because he acted out in rage and obviously needed to be subdued.
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: The cops have no business ignoring the Constitution even if they want to believe they are "protecteng themselves or their kind and the fact 5thqt they singled out a racially distinct and different individual tells us that they wee acting out of bias and prejudice.
Even so, they had no justifiable "cause" as is required by the Constitution to single out that particular person. (And I have indeed previously address that particular point.)
The situation at the time and before the time was that the cops had no reason, other than prejudice, to single out the victim they did.
Left alone and not threatened improperly by the misaction of the Campus Cops, there was no "failure to cooperate". That so called "failure", as you insist it was, could not have existed had the cops not acted without adequate cause.
Then, according to witnesses, the student was removing himself. (The Cops do not constitute unbiased witnesses.)
Posted by bdgee on :
"You are the one saying they singled him out for his race. Is he supposed to be excluded from laws because he is a muslim american? No. Therefore they have the right to ask him, just like any other student, for his ID."
Just a bit of backward logic, there, it seems.
Correctly, it is, if the proposition , "if is true that implies B is true" is logically equivalent to the "if B is not true, that implies that A is not true".
Posted by Highway on :
Were not the officers involved black and hispanic? I think the race card goes out the window.
Posted by permanentjaun on :
Surprise surprise bdgee, you still haven't addressed the point I've made several times.
Now you dance around everything by presenting broken philosophical sentences.
Where is the backward logic. I'll point it out to you in your philosophical manner.
All americans are subject to the law. Muslims Americans are american. Therefore Muslim Americans are subject to the law.
Still, you have been the one to single out in this debate that he was an ethnic minority. You're trying to place the blame on cops simply because of that. You're disregarding the clear facts of the manner the kid presented himself and how cops are supposed to act when someone presents themselves in that way.
We've established that the cops used excessive force eventually, but the kid was wrong in how he acted from the beginning.
You are constantly dancing around the topic and the facts. I believe you will continually do so and this convorsation will go no where. In my mind you are no better than Bush.
I don't even know how your philosophical sentence even relates to what I said. I wouldn't be surprised if you were just spewing that out to try and sound intelligent.
"If a is true that implies B is true." If the kid is muslim american that implies he is to be excluded from laws? The kid was not exluded from law, implying he is not muslim american?
What point were you trying to make?
Oh yea, try and answer my points by the way. Refer to my previous post.
Posted by bdgee on :
I address and you can't follow.
I simply don't speaqk in the absolute simplest sentences of at most one simple clause so you can.
Thus......
Posted by permanentjaun on :
No. You haven't addressed anything. You tried to address the idea that the cops were not right in approaching him asking for his ID.
Not once have you addressed the point about how the kid acted and what situation it presents to the cops.
Explain to me then, how your philosophical sentence relates to what you quoted in that post?
Where were the A and B clauses in my statement that can either be true or not true? I was simply stating that he can not be excluded from law because he is muslim american. He must follow the rules and law just like every other american and student at UCLA.
Do you believe he shouldn't be subject to showing his ID because he is muslim american?
Look at you. You've turned a simple debate about police using excessive force into a debate about race and ethnicity. What motives do you have?
You can believe what you want, but you have yet to address my points. (OH look, I formed a compound sentence!) Get over yourself.
Posted by retiredat49 on :
Score: permanentjaun... 3 bdgee........... 0
Posted by Ace of Spades on :
quote:Originally posted by retiredat49: Score: permanentjaun... 3 bdgee........... 0
It's not over till the Fat Lady Sings Posted by dinner42 on :
quote:Originally posted by Ace of Spades:
quote:Originally posted by retiredat49: Score: permanentjaun... 3 bdgee........... 0
It's not over till the Fat Lady Sings
Or the Cows come home...
Posted by permanentjaun on :
Moo
Posted by dinner42 on :
See.... there's one already....
Posted by bdgee on :
He was singled out and declared a problem with no reason other than the attitude of the Campus Cops.
The kid acted like he should, minding his own business and not presenting any reason for anyone to assume he isn't exactly what he is, which, according to the Constitution is his right and an assurance that you will not be hasseled by the police, since they have no reason to single you out.
You need to address that issue, as I have repeatedly pointed out and you have repeatedly claimed a student has no right of any kind if the police want to assume they have unchecked authority to act on whim or prejudice or to assume that student, without specific reason, is daqngerous or a troublemaker or whatever.
You clearly have no respect for the Constitution and are an avid supporter of the rightwing undermining of the Constitution. I am not!
You are not going to change your mind and, like the whole body of the far right conspiracy, you eagerly avoid the question of the Bill of Rights, choosing instead to misrepresent the action of the police and the Government as "protections needed from terrorist".
Posted by andrew on :
Permanentjaun......You will not win this arguement, did'nt you know bdgee is always right. If you dont believe me ask him.
Posted by jordanreed on :
i understood the rent a cops did a routine sweep after 11 pm of the library asking to see I.D.s...
show your G>D> i.d. card and be done with it!!
as far as i can tell?.. this kid is a moron..
Posted by andrew on :
Bingo Jordan!!
Posted by jordanreed on :
one more thing before i go to work...
...ive learned that over the years,dont F with the cops,,, intially, you wont win...
Posted by permanentjaun on :
In fact I have addressed this issue multiple times. I repeat, multiple times.
When you go to the airport just like millions of other americans each day, are you not asked for ID? Where you acting in some manner to single yourself out such that anyone had reason to believe you are a troublemaker? No. Each day millions of americans have their possessions scanned and ID's checked. Many are subject to random bag checks where their possessions are rummaged through by a stranger.
Am I supposed to declare it is my constitutional right to be able to refuse these ID checks, metal detection scans, and x-ray scans? That is essentially what you're saying. Someone alert the millions of Americans flying each day that they have a case for the Supreme Court.
When a 23 year old goes to a liquor store and is asked for their ID, is he allowed to buy alcohol without showing ID? Where does it say in the constitution that he doesn't have to prove he is of legal age to purchase alcohol? No ID, No Sale.
If it were not campus policy that only students with an ID be allowed in the library past 11 then you would have a case, but it is. The library has postings clearly stating you need a student ID to be able to stay in the library past 11 pm.
Why would this situation be any different from the security at airports or buying alcohol?
You do have the constitutional right to not show any ID. Sure. But there are rules. When you don't show ID at the airport, you don't get to fly. When you don't show ID at the liquor store, you don't get to buy alcohol. When you don't show ID at the library, you have to leave.
"The kid acted like he should, minding his own business and not presenting any reason for anyone to assume he isn't exactly what he is..."
Sure. He was fine, until he was approached for his ID, which the cops are allowed to do, and he starts yelling at them. Why should he start yelling at them? Why would he refuse to show ID if he is a student? When he began acting like he did he gave the cops reason to believe he was a threat. I'll say it again, unidentified male without ID yelling at the cops furiously and not cooperating. When I went to school I saw many students asked for their ID. Not once did I see them flip out in a rage against police.
Prove to me it's your constitutional right to be able to fly on a plane without having to show ID or have your bags x-rayed.
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
retiredat49,
Don't you have a terribly empty feeling ---- in your skull?
quote:Originally posted by retiredat49: Score: permanentjaun... 3 bdgee........... 0
Posted by retiredat49 on :
Wow Gordo...another brilliant comeback...did you come up with that one all by yourself, or did you get help from your 10th grade classmates?
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
I'd like to see things from your point of view but I can't seem to get my head that far up my ass.
Posted by retiredat49 on :
So...how far up your ass have you put your head? Half way...three quarters...that sounds painful!!! That explains your inability to think clearly though...
Posted by jordanreed on :
ok......funny, guys..
now lets get back on topic...
i got a garden up my azz..
Posted by bdgee on :
quote:Originally posted by retiredat49: So...how far up your ass have you put your head? Half way...three quarters...that sounds painful!!! That explains your inability to think clearly though...
Yes, Gordon, pay attention to retiredat49!
In these matters he is the expert.
He's up there routinely all the time and is accutely aware of the effects of it.
He knows!!!!
He's a pro.
Posted by Ace of Spades on :
Permanentjaun, you said...
"When a 23 year old goes to a liquor store and is asked for their ID, is he allowed to buy alcohol without showing ID? Where does it say in the constitution that he doesn't have to prove he is of legal age to purchase alcohol? No ID, No Sale. "
Your right, but can the Cashier Taser him as the kid is walking out of the liquor store?
That's the point here,
you making to big of deal about showing the I.D. this whole thing has nothing to with the ID, it's about whether the cops should have tasered him or not. First of all they weren't even aresting him. You can't resist aresting if you aren't being arested in the first place. The kid was never charged, or read his rights.
Posted by permanentjaun on :
You just changed the situation. bdgee was arguing that it is unconstitutional for police to ask for ID in that situation. I showed that it is not unconstitutional.
So then we go on to the next scenerio. What situation did the student present after refusing ID? I can't believe I'm repeating this part again. He was an unidentified male refusing to show ID and therefore trespassing. Then he was yelling in a rage at police officers as he refused to cooperate with officers.
Even if he was laying on the floor limp what was the scenerio? He needed to be removed. He was still yelling at police so the cops tasered him to subdue him.
The commodity that an ID buys is different in the situations as well. In the library the ID allows you to stay in the building. In the liquor store an ID allows you to buy alcohol. So the person at the liquor store would be yelling at the cashier about letting them buy alcohol, not about leaving the store.
If someone was yelling at a cashier with the rage this kid was yelling with I'm sure they could have tasered them under the grounds of self defense since it would be unsure what he would do next. Would he leap over the counter in rage to beat the cashier and take the alcohol?
When you change the scenerios you change what the person is yelling about. Therefore, yes, a cashier at a liquor store could possibly have the right to taser the suspect if they feel they're acting in self defense.
Posted by glassman on :
i say taser everybody that carries a taser BEFORE they can be issued one....
maybe the "training" tasering should be 50% srtength? maybe 75% strength? i dunno, but if it's really safe? then getting it done as part of the training should be no problem...
i was tear gassed in boot camp, no problem... but i think it was weaker than normal too...
i think tasers are too easy to use, but have a proper place in law enforcement....
my kid is in college, i want to know who is hanging out on campus everywhere, not just in the library
"you making to big of deal about showing the I.D. this whole thing has nothing to with the ID, it's about whether the cops should have tasered him or not. First of all they weren't even aresting him. You can't resist aresting if you aren't being arested in the first place. The kid was never charged, or read his rights"
Actually that was bdgee making the big deal about police asking for ID and if that was constitutional or not. My deal with the ID is just that it adds more to him being unidentified, which is very important to a situation. If he is indentified they know if the person has any arrest warrants out for them. Have they committed any crimes in the past?
I have stated several times the cops did use excessive force. I have stated that if he was already handcuffed at the time of the first taser then the first taser was excessive force.
Who said anything about being arrested? He needed to be removed from the building. You don't need to be arrested by cops to be removed from a building. If you're acting enraged then it's going to take more than just a push and a shove to remove you. If he had just followed the cops simple commands and not become furious with them, the cops would have had no reason to taser him.
Posted by Ace of Spades on :
UCLA Officer Who Used Taser Tied To Other Controversies
LOS ANGELES -- The UCLA police officer videotaped using a Taser gun on a student also shot a homeless man at a campus study hall room three years ago and was recommended for dismissal in connection with an alleged assault on fraternity row, it was reported Tuesday.
UCLA police confirmed Monday night that the officer who fired the Taser gun was Terrence Duren, who has served in the university's Police Department for 18 years, the Los Angeles Times reported.
Duren, named officer of the year in 2001, has been involved in several controversial incidents on campus. But in an interview with The Times last night, the 43-year-old Duren defended his record and urged people to withhold judgment until the review of his Taser use is completed.
While he would not directly talk about why he used the Taser on the student, he told The Times that a videotape of any arrest doesn't necessarily tell the whole story.
"If someone is resisting, sometimes it's not going to look pretty taking someone into custody," he told the newspaper.
A student's cellphone video of the incident has been broadcast around the world and focused much criticism on the officer.
The incident occurred about 11 p.m. Nov. 14 in a library filled with students studying for midterm examinations. Senior Mostafa Tabatabainejad, 23, was asked by Duren and other university police officers for his ID as part of a routine procedure to make sure that everyone using the library after 11 p.m. is a student or otherwise authorized to be there.
Authorities said Tabatabainejad refused to provide identification or leave. Officers decided to use the Taser to incapacitate him after he went limp while they were escorting him out and after he urged other library patrons to join his resistance, according to the university's account.
what i find particularly rediculous is after tasering this guy (for those who dont know a taser is to immobilize a suspect) they tell him to stand up or they will taser him again!! how could the guy win?
Posted by bdgee on :
The guy never had a chance from the instant the KK decided to single him out because he "looked" different.
He was toast.
Posted by permanentjaun on :
Since you have failed to address my points and continue to insist it was just a race thing I consider this convorsation over. I'm kind of dissappointed. I wanted to know how your philosophical sentence related to what I said. I guess we'll never know.
Posted by bdgee on :
Good!
I stopped considering it a conversation when you refused to post without insults and made it plain that you consider anything to the left of Bonito to be leftist.
Posted by permanentjaun on :
"Yours seems to be a quite simple minded reading of the Constitution, allowing only those results that your rightwing leanings want to come from the Constitution."
"I think you are showing a tad of racial prejudice yourself and way more than a tad of the sort of prejucice bad cops have for what they call "civilians"."
"You clearly have no respect for the Constitution and are an avid supporter of the rightwing undermining of the Constitution. I am not!"
Those are direct quotes from your posts bdgee. You called me a simple minded, right wing, constitution destroying racist. When in fact I have voted democrat for the past two elections, have a degree from one of the top public universities in New England, and support the constitution. I applaud judges that strike down attempts by President Bush to circumvent the constitution. I don't agree with water boarding and do think it is a form of torture.
Now you go back and search my quotes for what you claim are insults.
Also, try to come back and address my valid points, which you are avoiding by saying I insulted you. I know I told you to get over yourself and what not. So while I may not be innocent, it is clear that neither are you. GET OVER YOURSELF!
Posted by bdgee on :
Yes, and they are factual statements.
I don't take orders well and I will not play your childish far right game of "tell me your view so I can belittle it".
Go find a mirror and be arrogant in front of it, if that personna so pleases you. No one will miss you doing it here.
Posted by permanentjaun on :
Now who is the one insulting who?
They are in fact not factual statements as I have mentioned. I guess voting democrat the past two elections does make me a right wing republican. "Just a bit of backward logic, there, it seems."
No you don't take orders well and you don't engage in debates well either. You haven't come back to disprove my valid points. You come back using philosophical statements that don't relate to what I said, tell me to, "Go find a mirror and be arrogant in front of it, if that personna so pleases you. No one will miss you doing it here," and say I insulted you.
Real mature. You have done nothing to further this discussion in your last 4 posts. The others before it could be said to be lacking in substance as well since it was you who brought race and ethnicity into it. You've misused the constitution. You have failed to address the safety of the police and other students and how the student was actually presenting himself.
You have done nothing for this discussion except give me ways to prove the police were correct in their actions to remove and subdue the suspect. Come back and debate me rather than insulting me.
Posted by bdgee on :
Now lets see, you say the cops had good reason and every right to accost the student and it wasn't an arrest, but when he tried to leave, that gave the cops reason and the right to beat him senseless with a tasor, because he was resisting an arrest you insist wasn't there.
It still requires adequate cause, not a cops will or whim, to legally use police power to stop people!
You are so far rightwing reactionary you probably think the cops in that New york shooting of the bridegroom had no choice but to murder a defenseless and innocent person with 50 shots into a car in violation of police guidlines.
And I bet you think that poor old lady in Atlanta wasn't deaf and was a mortal threat to the American way of life.
You are hawking meanness and evil, not law.
Posted by permanentjaun on :
How is he leaving when he is lying limp on the floor? Was he leaving before that? That hasn't been proven yet. Therefore I'm debating the case that he wasn't leaving.
What gives the cops reason to taser him? UNIDENTIFIED MALE REFUSING TO SHOW ID. THEREFORE ILLEGALLY TRESPASSING. YELLING IN A FURIOUS RAGE AT POLICE OFFICERS AND REFUSING TO COOPERATE WITH OFFICERS. NEEDED TO BE SUBDUED.
How many times do I have to state that AND that I agree it was excessive force after the initial tasering AND that the initial tasering was excessive force as well if he was already handcuffed at the time.
I never said he was resisting arrest because I never said he was getting arrested. If you lash out at cops when they want you to do something you're going to pay a price. They make decisions on if you're going to escalate the conflict to the next step. They need to act with their safety in mind. It's like you're saying a cop has no reason to bring you down if you run at him full speed screaming, because you say you were going to stop before you hit him. No. The cop has reason to bring you down.
You still think tasering is beating huh? You still haven't told me if you believe getting shot by a bullet is considered beating someone.
As for the second half of your post. Not only does it not do anything for this debate and try to insult me, you also speak on behalf of me. I'll speak for myself thank you. In fact, HOW DARE YOU! To express opinions on behalf of me or anyone besides yourself is not only impossible for you to do, it is blatantly disrespectful and rude.
How am I hawking meanness and evil? I want suspects that are severely enraged and disrespectful to authority who don't cooperate with society to learn and pay for their actions. All he had to do was show ID. All he had to do was not yell at police. All he had to do was cooperate with police. Instead he decided to lash out at police, make a scene, and not cooperate with their commands.
You are "hawking" the safety of the police and other students/civilians to be sacraficed as you give potential criminals more power. There are lines to be drawn eventually. This is not one of them.
Posted by permanentjaun on :
You can stop calling me right wing by the way. I've told you many times I voted democrat in the last two elections. I also am pro-choice. Like I mentioned, I also believe that water boarding is torture. I also believe that we NEED to explore stem cell research. I also believe homosexuals should be allowed the right to marry and be recognized as married just like heterosexual couples.
If you continue to call me right wing, republican, of any variation thereof then the accusations will fall on deaf ears. You're debating with a left wing, liberal democrat. You're more extreme left than you think.
Posted by Ace of Spades on :
quote:Originally posted by permanentjaun: How is he leaving when he is lying limp on the floor? Was he leaving before that? That hasn't been proven yet. Therefore I'm debating the case that he wasn't leaving.
What gives the cops reason to taser him? UNIDENTIFIED MALE REFUSING TO SHOW ID. THEREFORE ILLEGALLY TRESPASSING. YELLING IN A FURIOUS RAGE AT POLICE OFFICERS AND REFUSING TO COOPERATE WITH OFFICERS. NEEDED TO BE SUBDUED.
How many times do I have to state that AND that I agree it was excessive force after the initial tasering AND that the initial tasering was excessive force as well if he was already handcuffed at the time.
I never said he was resisting arrest because I never said he was getting arrested. If you lash out at cops when they want you to do something you're going to pay a price. They make decisions on if you're going to escalate the conflict to the next step. They need to act with their safety in mind. It's like you're saying a cop has no reason to bring you down if you run at him full speed screaming, because you say you were going to stop before you hit him. No. The cop has reason to bring you down.
You still think tasering is beating huh? You still haven't told me if you believe getting shot by a bullet is considered beating someone.
As for the second half of your post. Not only does it not do anything for this debate and try to insult me, you also speak on behalf of me. I'll speak for myself thank you. In fact, HOW DARE YOU! To express opinions on behalf of me or anyone besides yourself is not only impossible for you to do, it is blatantly disrespectful and rude.
How am I hawking meanness and evil? I want suspects that are severely enraged and disrespectful to authority who don't cooperate with society to learn and pay for their actions. All he had to do was show ID. All he had to do was not yell at police. All he had to do was cooperate with police. Instead he decided to lash out at police, make a scene, and not cooperate with their commands.
You are "hawking" the safety of the police and other students/civilians to be sacraficed as you give potential criminals more power. There are lines to be drawn eventually. This is not one of them.
He wasn't rufusing to cooperate...You can hear the kid say "I'm not resisting, I said I'll leave" in the video as he's being tasered. Yet they kept doing it.
This cop has a history of abuse and brutality.
Posted by J_U_ICE on :
10 SECONDS OF HELL IN QUEENS COP'S 'FRIENDLY FIRE' SPARKED BARRAGE THAT KILLED GROOM By MURRAY WEISS
November 27, 2006 -- A doomed young groom was caught in the crossfire of an undercover cop, whose bullets went clear through his car, and confused officers who returned their own blistering barrage, sources told The Post last night.
The blaze of gunfire lasted just 10 seconds outside the seedy Kalua Cabaret strip club in South Jamaica early Saturday. But it ended the life of 23-year-old, unarmed Queens dad Sean Bell, who was set to marry his high-school sweetheart and the mother of his two young daughters hours after his bachelor party at the club.
Dramatic new details of the deadly mayhem include the undercover cop at one point climbing onto the hood of Bell's car - his gun drawn and his police shield around his neck - screaming, "Police! Turn off your car! Let me see your hands!" said sources who talked to some of the cops involved in the shooting.
When Bell then tried to run down the plainclothes officer - twice - the cop began shooting, with some of his 11 bullets piercing the rear window of the man's Nissan Altima, the sources said.
This left the cop's backup unit - which was just arriving on the scene amid shattering glass and the undercover's shouts of "He's got a gun!" - thinking they were being fired upon from inside the vehicle. That's when they returned fire with another 39 bullets. One 12-year veteran, a narcotics detective, pumped 31 bullets, authorities said.
The sources recounted step-by-step how quickly things spiraled out of control after a dispute inside the club involving one of Bell's associates.
According to the sources, two undercovers were at the strip joint as part of the NYPD's new Club Enforcement Initiative. The program was started after the July slaying of 18-year-old Jennifer Moore of New Jersey, who partied at a Chelsea club before being abducted, raped and killed in a Weehawken hotel.
The undercovers, who usually worked in Manhattan, were on the last night of their two-month Queens job to try to nail the Kalua and other clubs on such violations as drugs and underage prostitution.
Inside the club, one of the plainclothes cops sat next to a woman he thought was a hooker and might proposition him, the sources said.
Suddenly, a burly man approached them and told the woman that he had heard she had gotten into a fight with a group of guys earlier in the club. It was unclear what it was over.
The man said, " 'Don't worry, baby, I got you covered,' and he takes her hand, and he rubs it across [the gun in] his waistband," a source said. "Then he tells her, 'That's what I'm here for.' "
It's unclear how the man smuggled his weapon past the metal detector outside the club. He likely was a regular who knew the bouncer at the door and may have worked there part time, helping with security, the sources said.
The undercover then went outside the club and radioed his backup to tell them there was a man inside with a gun. It was around 3:30 a.m.
While the undercover was outside, the suspect came out along with the girl and others, since it was around closing time.
The undercover watched as an argument erupted between Bell's group, which included three male pals and the beefy man with the gun, and four other men - with the woman in the middle of them, the sources said.
The woman was overheard saying to the men arguing with Bell's pals, "I'm not doing you all. I'll do one or two, but not all," according to the sources.
Around the same time, the undercover said he heard Bell's friend Joseph Guzman tell his buddies, "Yo, get my gun! Get my gun! Let's get my gun from the car! Yeah, we're gonna f- - - him up!" the sources said.
The undercover, thinking there was about to be a drive-by shooting in front of the club involving Bell's group, followed Guzman, Bell and two others to their car.
"It's getting hot! Something's going to happen! Something's going down!" the undercover radioed to his backup.
He hurried to the front of Bell's Altima, which was parked on the side of nearby Liverpool Street, and jumped in front of it.
That's when the undercover put his right leg up on the hood of the Altima and began screaming that he was a cop, the sources said.
The cop was leaning over the hood of the car to try to see the hands of the people inside and make sure they didn't have any guns, they said. But Bell floored the gas pedal and headed for the cop, the sources said, striking him and badly cutting his knee.
One of the Altima's passengers - who possibly had a gun - jumped out of the back of the car, the sources said.
Around the same time, an unmarked Toyota Camry driven by a plainclothes police lieutenant and another cop behind him pulled up, but overshot Bell's car. A police van with an officer and the narcotics detective then managed to block Bell's car in.
Bell's Altima first struck the police van in the driver's desperate bid to escape, then backed up and struck the roll-down metal doors of a commercial building behind him. He then revved his car again toward the undercover - which prompted the cop to scream, "He's got a gun!" and start firing, according to the sources, with the bullets passing through Bell's car.
"The undercover thought they had more than one gun. He thought they would do anything to get away. He was yelling, 'Let me see your hands!' " one source said.
The other cops, thinking they were under attack, started firing at the car, too.
At one point, the detective thought his gun had jammed and so reloaded his magazine and emptied the clip again at the car, firing 31 bullets.
Bell was killed, Guzman critically injured, and a third friend, Trent Benefield, was shot. They are expected to live.
Benefield later told a friend from his hospital bed that he and his buddies didn't know the undercovers were cops.
He told investigators, "I got into the car, and there was all this shooting."
It was unclear when the other four men who were originally fighting with Bell and his pals fled the scene. They were spotted leaving in a black SUV.
Bell had been arrested three times in the past: twice for drugs and one on a gun rap in a case that was sealed. Guzman has been busted nine times, including for armed robbery. He spent two stretches in state prison in the '90s. Benefield has a sealed record as a juvenile for gun possession and robbery.
Some marijuana was later found near the Altima, and investigators believe that it may have been tossed out by the group before the gunfire. Two bullet casings also were recovered from the Altima, although cops said they do not believe they were from a police gun.
The shooting of Bell, who was black, has ignited racial tensions in the city - even though the cops involved included two blacks, a Hispanic and two whites.
The five cops who fired shots were put on administrative duty. Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said it was the first time that any of the officers were involved in a shooting.
Detectives Endowment Association President Michael Palladino said the cops were justified in firing off a total of 50 bullets at unarmed men because Bell was using his car as a lethal weapon.
"Once the threat ended, so did the shooting."
A source told The Post: "They [the cops] feel completely sad about what happened. They made a decision, and they're going to live with it."
Mayor Bloomberg spoke to Bell's fiancée Saturday after the shooting, sources said.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
PIGS ![[Wink]](wink.gif)