Students Put UCLA Taser Video On YouTube 1583
dircha writes "As widely reported, an incident in which Iranian-American student Mostafa Tabatabainejad was tasered up to five times by UCLA police on Friday, has been captured by a fellow student using a video enabled cell phone and published to YouTube. From the Daily Bruin: 'At around 11:30 p.m. Tuesday, Tabatabainejad, a fourth-year Middle Eastern and North African studies and philosophy student, was asked to leave the library for failing to present his BruinCard during a random check. The 23-year-old student was hit with a Taser five times when he did not leave quickly and cooperatively upon being asked to do so.' In a story which has raised concerns of racial profiling, police brutality and the health risks of taser use, the ubiquity of video cell phone technology has given us a first hand record of an incident which might otherwise have been a he-said, she-said affair. While the publishing of the video to YouTube has given the issue compelling popular exposure beyond the immediate campus community."
Ask yourself this... (Score:5, Insightful)
And am I the only one that upon hearing, Police burtality" and "Caught of tape" are completely unsurprised the LAPD are somehow involved?
Re:Ask yourself this... (Score:5, Informative)
Both; neither. (Score:4, Informative)
It's not uncommon for the 'Campus Security' forces at a lot of state universities to be deputized. The universities want "actual" police protection, as opposed to more powerless rent-a-cops, but the local municipalities don't want to pay for more police officers out of the tax budget, or divert police resources from the rest of the community, so basically the universities run a quasi-private police force.
Arrangements like this are more common than you think. On railroads, the Amtrak Police or other transit police ("bulls") are privately employed, but have police powers within their area of jurisdiction. In California, bus companies can do similar things. (At least they could, a while ago.) In most states, they also have to complete regular police training at the State police academy or pass an equivalency test. WP has an interesting discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_police [wikipedia.org]
Basically, the line between 'security officers' and 'police' is blurrier than many people think, and has been for a long time. This isn't a bad thing -- the municipally-employed police don't have the resources to do many of the things that transit/metro/campus police forces do, and it saves a lot of public tax burden as well.
Re:Ask yourself this... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ask yourself this... (Score:5, Insightful)
Let us stipulate for the moment, just for the sake of argument, that the first Tasing was justified.
Their insistence that he get on his feet or they would tase him again is all the proof we need that they were not the brightest bulbs in the pack. The function of a Taser shock is to disable by disrupting nerve and muscle function.
If you could stand up after being Tased they wouldn't be using them in the first place.
KFG
Re:Ask yourself this... (Score:4, Insightful)
The current taser models override the voluntary muscle nerve impulses and cause the body to tense for the duration it's firing. Once it's off you're back to normal within a few seconds, with the exception of the adrenaline rush.
Almost everyone is able to get right back up if they choose to do so, especially if people are trying to pull them up from under the arms as it appears those officers were trying to do at one point in the video.
However, tasers are intended as a means of subduing a suspect without causing serious harm, not convince them to move.
So to respond to your original post, he could have gotten up when they told him to, the taser shot won't stop that. He chose not to. That's non-violent resistance, and I wouldn't begrudge anyone that. They needed to suck it up, get a few guys and carry him out if that's what needed to be done.
Re:Ask yourself this... (Score:5, Informative)
This isn't what I've seen. Just last month an acquaintance of mine, a police officer in Indiana, offered to dress like Keith Richards and be tasered on stage for five seconds while "Start Me Up" played. No, I'm serious... it was a contest put on by a radio station to give away backstage passes for the Stones concert: whoever did the craziest thing, determined by judges and crowd reaction, got the tickets.
Anyways, he had been tasered before as part of his training, so this was his second time. The MC shot him across stage with the electrodes (they go quite far) and then juiced him for five seconds straight. He stiffened like a board and two bouncers helped him to fall safely face down on the ground. And there he lay for at least 30 seconds wihout moving: despite his best efforts, he could not get up. In fact, the crowd was mostly silent and occasionally gasping as we thought he might be dead. Eventually, with the help of the bouncers he was able to regain his feet. He won the tickets. But he was moving in slow motion for another 15-30 minutes and complained that he felt like shit for the rest of the night.
In any case, I'm just saying that when they turn off the taser, at least some of the time, the victim cannot get right back up as you claim. So telling someone "get up or I'll taser you again" is absolutely moronic.
Cheers.
Re:Ask yourself this... (Score:5, Insightful)
Failure to show a piece of paper is no justification for the brutality shown. There was utterly no justifiable reason for the patrolmen to not have handled this in a more humane way. The school deserves whatever financial justice the UCLA alumni choose to visit upon them for hiring dumb thugs to 'protect' the students. Do not donate when solicited by UCLA. Make them hurt.
The video was the sickest thing I've witnessed recently, unless you count watching parts of the movie "Saw".
Re:Ask yourself this... (Score:5, Informative)
Also, notice how this idiot cop doesn't tell her she's under arrest. He just YELLS at her to get out of the car, then fires.
First he orders her to step out of the vehicle and then to put the phone down. Then he tells her to put the phone down again. Then he opens the door and grabs her, which she resists. She starts screaming. (Note: so far, the officer has not yelled).
The policeman draws his gun and orders her out of the car. At this point, he has raised his voice and might be considered to be 'yelling' (after several lawful attempts to get her to step out of the car). He tells her twice more to get out of the car, and says that he will taze her if she does not comply. Once more (3) he tells her to get out of the car. She refuses, he tazes.
That covers the first 40 seconds of the video. Can you see how that is different from your account? Can you see how you've created a bias in readers who don't go look at the video? This is exactly what radio talk show journalists do, it's exactly what Microsoft does, it's exactly the orwellian doublespeak that people rant about so much on Slashdot, only this time it's got a liberal slant instead of a commercial one. Regardless of the reasonablity of using the taser on this woman (and after resisting several lawful orders while being in a car where weapons can be easily hidden, I'm not sure the initial taze was unjustified), you have created a bias before anyone even clicks your link by implying that the officer didn't even give her a chance to exit the vehicle, or that he only asked her once and waited (who knows how long) before playing with his toy.
Try to look at things objectively, even when they're very emotional. Try to be rational. Knee-jerk reactions are a pretty big problem these days, and it's up to everyone to remain calm and level-headed when examining a situation like this.
Re:Ask yourself this... (Score:5, Informative)
Ummmmm... no [tbotech.com].
Tasers work by using electrical shocks to rapidly contract and release your muscles. This has the very short-term effect of making you lose voluntary control of those muscles, but it also depletes the ATP (your muscles' "fuel"). A half-second burst will make you twitch violently and go "Ow". A 1-2 second burst will daze your attacker. 3-2 seconds will cause loss of balance, disorientation, and will leave you "passive and confused" for several minutes.
A decent taser jolt (or, say, 5 or so jolts in quick succession) will effectively empty your muscles of ATP - your muscles literally have no fuel to contract, so you simply can't move them. Once the tazing stops your body will begin to resupply ATP to the muscles faster than it's being used up... but you'll be weak, shaky and possibly incapable of walking or standing up for several minutes.
"Almost everyone is able to get right back up if they choose to do so, especially if people are trying to pull them up from under the arms as it appears those officers were trying to do at one point in the video."
You've obviously read simplified reports of what happens when someone is given a single half-second burst. This is not the case for longer or repeated bursts.
Re:Ask yourself this... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Ask yourself this... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Ask yourself this... (Score:5, Insightful)
However, I do NOT agree that tasering him five times, using it as motivation of all things, is appropriate. A taser should be used as an alternative to a club or a gun. If he was physically resisting, taser him once, get the cuffs on him, and drag his sorry ass out of the building. There is absolutely no excuse to taser someone five times because they refuse to move.
He already had the cuffs on, and was laying on the ground.
A taser is not a motivational tool.
You contradict yourself. (Score:4, Insightful)
So how the fuck did the student get in? He was already down, at a computer, with books. If ID is required to be shown at the door for entry, why would he be caught LEAVING the building to begin with, unless he had already shown his ID and was granted entry?
Re:Ask yourself this... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Ask yourself this... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Ask yourself this... (Score:4, Insightful)
Racial Profiling is stupid, ineffective, and an unjustifiable abuse of statistical reasoning.
Racial Profiling (Score:5, Funny)
The simple fact is, Americans aren't terrorists. Anyone who tells you otherwise has been corrupted by public education, sharing, or evolutionists.
Re:Ask yourself this... (Score:5, Insightful)
Idiotic. If he did happen to be a suicide bomber, as you imply, he would detonate himself the moment the guards approached him. And actually he was American born, and no doubt rather pissed at being anal probed at every opportunity. Have you ever been in a university library? Half the patrons are scruffy, bearded, belligerant and with backpacks.
Re:Ask yourself this... (Score:5, Insightful)
No way in hell I'd move. I'd at least stay around to finish up that last thought, if possible, and then I'd leave. Which is apparently more or less how it happened. They told him to leave, but he did not right away. By the time they came back to haul him off, he had already finished packing his stuff and was on his way out when they stopped him. At such I point, I would no longer be in the mood to fuck around. I think maybe screaming about it was uncalled for, and he might have been able to handle it better. But if the whole thing went down anything like I described, and it seems likely, I can certainly relate to his plight.
Re:Ask yourself this... (Score:4, Insightful)
Incidents like this become even more disturbing when you think that police officers are also prone to PTSD and itchy trigger fingers, and a considerable percentage of Iraq veterans with much worse cases of either/both will probably find their way into some sort of police force after their tour (or tours) of duty.
Re:Ask yourself this... (Score:5, Insightful)
My point? People can forget things, even very important items such as IDs. Not everyone has had good experiences with police/authority figures, and that clouds their interactions with them in the future. Did he deserve that first tazzing? I don't know, I wasn't there. But I and anyone who understand what a tazzer does knows that tazzing him 4 more times for not getting up after the first tazzing is just idiotic and crossed the line into police brutality. I hope those cops are fired and get slapped with both a federal crime charge and a lawsuit from the student. He could have been nicer, but they basically tortured him and should suffer the consequences of their actions.
Re:Ask yourself this... (Score:5, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Ask yourself this... (Score:5, Insightful)
Taser should never be used to make you do something. It should be used to stop you from doing something. IE struggling with an officer, refusing to lay down on the ground, locking your arms so you can be hand cuffed. Using a taser to force you do something is borderline torture.
Re:Ask yourself this... (Score:5, Insightful)
Fixed that for ya. So when the police are torturing people in the middle of a school in front of everyone; are we a police state yet? Was it some other kind of "worse" that "other countries have" that everyone meant when they blew off those that have said so before?
~Rebecca
Re:Ask yourself this... (Score:5, Insightful)
Or, instead of shooting him they could have acted like:
1. Adults with a functioning sense of empathy
2. People employed as government servants to protect the people
3. Agents of the government of a functioning democracy
4. A group of half-a-dozen people trying to get one, smaller, nonviolent person to move
And just left him there or carried him out peacefully.
At what point does repeatedly tasing an unarmed civilian, already on the floor, constitute "reasonable force"?
The key message here wasn't "we want you out of the library" - if that was the case they would have carried him - it was "you will submit and do what we say, or we will continue to cause you pain until you do".
And that, my friend, is torture.
Re:Ask yourself this... (Score:5, Insightful)
Stop right there. Let's look at the definition of torture [answers.com], shall we?
Oh look - first definition: "Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion"
Severe physical pain? Check.
Punishment for not voluntarily moving? Check.
Coercion to move? Check?
It is torture. Don't mince words and don't try to apologise. A foreign student was repeatedly tortured in front of a crowd of students by the police.
Ok? Now, moving on:
"but tasers do have valid uses in police work and are far more humane than the alternatives."
The only sane "alternatives" in this case were to leave him there or carry him out.
How is tazing someone "more humane" than these alternatives? Did you think about what you were saying at all before you posted?
"If I'm wrong then feel free to tell me how a 120lb policewoman is going to stop a 250lb male mental patient from bashing her senseless simply because she looks like his mother."
Sorry, again... where was the 250lb mental patient? All I saw was a gang of cops standing over a smaller, prone, single student, repeatedly giving him painful and debilitating electric shocks.
Your post makes no fucking sense whatsoever.
Nobody's saying tazers aren't more humane than shooting someone. Nobody's saying there aren't situations where police (or whoever) should be allowed to defend themselves. Where did you hallucinate these arguments from.
All people are doing is expressing outrage that a groups of cops should stand over a single, smaller student and repeatedly torture him until he obeys their (questionable) instructions.
What about this strikes you as a good thing? Then why are you introducing irrelevant straw-man apologies for it?
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Ask yourself this... (Score:5, Interesting)
That behaviour, combined with the refusal to give a badge number, would have me dialling emergency services and saying "Three men impersonating police officers are attacking a student" because quite frankly, that's what it looks like.
GIve them enough rope to hang themselves (Score:4, Insightful)
Simply put, if they had interjected, the Police would have had a reason and opportunity to turn this into a riot, and flush it all down the memory hole. The guys with cameras? Arrested, and the "evidence" confiscated for the "investigation" of the "riot that evil Iranian Muslim terrorist" caused.
Instead they watched, recorded, and let the police do their bad things all on their own, and the cops will get theirs when the time comes.
Personally, if I was the UCLA students, I'd be carrying a camera everywhere I went from now on. Because if these cops are stupid enough to do this on camera and in front of a crowd, just what do you think they'd do in front of 1 or 2 witnesses in a more questionable situation?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If I give you plenty of notice that you are going to be shot in the head with my revolver, does the warning justify my use of force? If you don't comply with my command to get up, is my continued shooting into your head justified?
Re:Ask yourself this... (Score:5, Insightful)
Thats the stupidest f**king thing I have ever heard. Granted I haven't been in college since 87, but I KNOW that 5 officers can pick up and carry a 200lb man. (he didn't look that big, but police say he is, so maybe) The first shock may have been righteous (don't know, don't care). Once the handcuffs where on, the man could be laying on the ground shouting 'I f**ked you daughter', and you still don't get to taser him again. Thats when it crosses the line. What they should have done was defused the situation by leaving him on the ground passive and shouting like a fool and asking the students to back up. Then those 5 cops I counted in the video could have carried his ass out the nearest exit. It doesn't matter if he was an asshole or a jerk or a retard shouting 'I want Jesus', he was passive not combative.
Re:Ask yourself this... (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe it's time to start wearing copper-mesh-impregnated shirts if this is the wave of the future.
Re:Ask yourself this... (Score:4, Insightful)
Any explanation you could give for some small part of this atrocity would always leave the rest shown to be completely unnecessary.
Re:Ask yourself this... (Score:4, Insightful)
You essentially made my point for me though, about the tasering being akin (this means "similar", not "same" as you wrote it) to beating him. The taser is supposed to be used instead of a club in situations that require force to subdue someone, it should not be used in a situation that could not also warrant the use of a club if no taser was available. That is the point you, and most undertrained cops, fail to understand. Someone who is lying MOTIONLESS on the ground does not need to be subdued, period! Narrow minded people like yourself need to remember that a taser can be much more harmful or even deadly than a club to someone with specific medical conditions (some of which may be unknown even to the person being tased).
Re:Ask yourself this... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you are given lawful instructions by a police officer, you are a damn fool not to listen to them.
However, if you are ordered to do something that you feel violates your civil rights by someone that you feel is racially profiling or discriminating against you based on the color of your skin, and surrounded by people that can back you up (with testimony, video or photo evidence) you're a fool not to employ non-violent resistance in protest.
It looks to me like this situation straddles the line. Lawful orders given by officers that may have acted on prejudice, and followed it up with excessive force. Ugly for -everyone- involved, but far, far worse for the officers. There were three officers, and I'm sure the situation could have been handled a hell of a lot better.
And as to tasers and the lingering effect, that differs depending on the individual. Some people can get up and walk, some people can't move extremities with any serious control, and I've seen some people that could -barely- talk when they were hit. It's perfectly reasonable to say this guy might not have been able to control his limbs well enough to give the officers what they wanted (even if he was so inclined).
This was neither a case of a completely innocent person being tasered, nor was it a case of officers being abusive dicks for the fun of it. It straddled the line. But in any case where you have the line being straddled like this, the people with the authority, the guns, the tasers and the nightsticks are the ones most at fault. They were entrusted with authority to uphold and represent the law, and they misused it. Do I think they should be fired? Not sure - but an investigation should definitely be conducted.
As to the scenario you point out at the end of your post, I have to say that on the -surface- of it, that's a completely bullshit charge against the officers. I just read an article on that particular incident, so I know the specifics of what you're referring to, and I have to say I completely agree that it sounds like a justifiable shoot.
But this tasering isn't nearly the same sort of situation. The officers were not (from what I saw/heard) being threatened with harm, nor was anyone else. The officers made unrealistic demands once he -was- tasered, and were treating him like a violent suspect which was not the case from what I was able to make out on that video.
Sick (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sick (Score:5, Interesting)
Wow (Score:5, Funny)
Catching the argument... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Catching the argument... (Score:5, Insightful)
Now there will no doubt be a flood of whining along the lines of, "Oh cops have such a tough job, and they deal with scumbags all day, and you just don't understaaaand!" Whatever. About, oh, fifteen years ago it was my job to render medical care to a group of people who had quite actively been trying to kill me a little while before, and who would have kept trying if they'd had the chance. And I did it, no tasers or billy clubs or attack dogs or waterboarding required. Which is why, whether it's happening halfway around the world at Abu Ghraib or right here at home in America, I have no trouble saying: fuck this shit. The people who do such things to prisoners aren't cops, or soldiers, or any kind of public servant. They're criminals, and because of their abuse of power, should be treated even more harshly than we treat serial killers, pedophiles, and other such scum.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Catching the argument... (Score:5, Interesting)
Why He Should Not Have Been Tased (Score:5, Insightful)
1. After being shocked repeatedly, could he even have been ABLE to "just" stand up?
2. After being shocked repeatedly, would be have been in a mental state to understand the cops' commands?
3. He was on the floor. An irritating act, but something deserving electrocution?
4. What if someone asks for a warrant, should they also get electrocuted. After all "all he had to do was let them search."
Put simply, this was WRONG. The kid deserves to be arrested, NOT electrocuted. To those of you who say "tasing is non-lethal," well, i dare you to do it to yourself. Post a video on YouTube to prove it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.orrville.com/OPD/Training%20Taser.htm [orrville.com]
"i dare you to do it to yourself."
http://www.orrville.com/OPD/Training%20Taser%20Vi
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Part of the problem is if he refuses to get up, you cannot drag him to arrest him - he must stand so he can be removed. What we cannot see in the video was how much the person may or may not have resisted being pulled to his feet to take him away, he could well have been twisting pretty wildly.
Re:Why He Should Not Have Been Tased (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe he was in the wrong. Maybe he was looking for an excuse to feel persecuted. Maybe he was looking for a fight. But the last thing the police should be looking to do is to give him that fight.
The job of police is to maintain order and diffuse tense situations, force is something that should be used as a last resort and not something to be applied at the earliest opportunity.
p.s. The reaction of the crowd told me that not only did none of them consider him a threat but that the police actions were only serving to increase the risk of violence by driving the crowd of students to physically intervene to stop the police.
Re:Why He Should Not Have Been Tased (Score:4, Insightful)
Immaterial of the ethnicity, what the cops did was wrong -- you are in a position of power. If the kid was being a jerk, use more people to restrain him. Tazing someone should be reserved when the victim presents a threat (i.e. having a weapon).
This was brutality, plain and simple. The folks who did this should be in prison for life.
Two sides to every story (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This might've been taken out of context from the web page, but I actually agree with this since the most difficult solution provides the most opportunity to learn something new for the most simplest problem. Too often too many college students take the easiest way out instead of busting their ass to find alternative solutions. Sometimes that hurts.
Re:Two sides to every story (Score:5, Insightful)
A civilian who reacted like this to somebody taunting him, arguing with him, whatever, would be headed to prison for aggravated assault. Cops, because of their position of power, should face even harsher penalties for such behavior.
bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
Based on what.
Second, they repeatedly warned him before tasing him each time.
Irrelevant. They had no business tasering a handcuffed suspect for being uncooperative.
Third, according to firsthand accounts and the story, he was provoking the crowd.
Watch the video. He wasn't doing anything more than screaming "here's your Patriot Act, here's your fucking abuse of power."
Sure, it looks like the cops overreacted, but not to the extent that you're saying.
Yes, they did, and they belong in jail for assault.
Re:Two sides to every story (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Two sides to every story (Score:5, Insightful)
Keep in mind, that "I like to find the most difficult solutions to the simplest of problems" and "he's the kind of guy that loves to make trouble" are not the same thing as being a violent person. In fact, this is exactly the kind of mindset you'd expect from a philosophy major with an interest in the philosophy of non-violent resistance and individual rights.
A real criminal doesn't refuse to show ID and stand his ground with the cops, they would get the hell out of there before it escalates. Making a scene like that is exactly the kind of thing a libertarian with an attitude or a leftie into protest politics does. Remember that guy who went to the Supreme Court over not showing cops his drivers licence? I bet this guy also had his ID in his pocket, he just wanted to make a point about requiring it.
That "he urged others to join his resistance and a crowd began to gather" (from the ABC story) sounds like he was trying to make a political point. That he knew to "fall limp to the floor" also seems to indicate he was at least aware of non-violent protest tactics. His middle eastern ethnicity and Bahai faith probably make him extra-sensitive to issues of profiling and discrimination, too.
That he was being a self-righteous asshole is just another indication that he's not a criminal and is instead an intellectual who was expecting an argument or debate - instead, he got some muscle-bound cop who thought insolence and disobedience had to be met by force.
So congratulations, Campus Cops - you found the least dangerous, most-likely-to-sue-over-civil-rights student in the library and tasered him in front of a crowd with cameras. Great job.
Panopticon becomes reality (Score:5, Insightful)
Bystanders (Score:3, Interesting)
To be expected. (Score:4, Insightful)
I've seen cops and bar bouncers smack around people on various occasions, some of them deserving, some of them probably not, and in each case there were people standing around and watching. I've never seen anyone who wasn't directly connected in some way to the person getting the beating involve themselves unnecessarily.
Most people will happily stand back and watch Bad Things Happening To Other People Who Probably Deserve It Somehow. It's probably humanity's oldest form of entertainment.
To most of the people in that library, the whole thing was just like watching COPS, but in the ultra-ultra high definition sometimes known as Reality(TM).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
surveillance society (Score:3, Interesting)
The words "surveillance society" scare a lot of people, but I would actually love to live in a surveillance society that worked the way this event worked out: the surveillance is carried out by individuals, in a public place, voluntarily, and all they're doing is recording something that they saw with their own eyeballs anyway.
Similarly, I would love to see photo red light reimplemented so that if other drivers saw you run a red light, they could slap a button on their dashboards, and the video would be posted on you-tube. Hell, we wouldn't even need a DMV anymore. Insurance companies would just hire people to watch traffic videos, and log patterns of stupid behavior by certain individuals. The insurance companies would then refuse to offer insurance to those people.
I'm a teacher, and over the past 10 years of teaching, I've had the following experiences: (1) a student gets upset and disrupts my class for 10 minutes (10 minutes is a long time); (2) a homophobic student harasses a gay student while I'm out of the room; (3) a student attacks me in the hall, throws me in some bushes, and threatens to kill me. In all three cases, I would have loved to have the whole thing recorded on you-tube, because significant disagreements arose later about what really happened. In incident #2, in fact, a room full of students were unable to identify the harasser, and it turned out that it was more of a two-way thing than the initial witnesses (the gay student's friends) had claimed. A room full of witnesses is nice, but a video is a lot nicer.
The good or bad effects of this kind of technology depend a lot on who uses the technology. It's like guns. Guns in the hands of Nazis stormtroopers: bad. Guns in the hands of individuals: good.
Why didn't anyone help? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It was non-lethal force. If someone were to "help", then that allows the cops to use lethal force to protect themselves. Bad idea.
The students did the best thing by watching and videoing the thing. We need to keep civility and let law enforcement do their job. If you disagree, then the courtroom and legislation are your tools to try and fix t
Video shows nothing, starts too late (Score:4, Insightful)
That combined with how he was screaming about the "patriot act" made me more than a little suspicious that the victim went in with the goal of mixing it up with some law enforcement people, angry at The Man to start.
That video raises more questions than it answers, about both sides of the conflict. Next time, if anyone else is in the same situation can't you stand on a chair please!
Re:Video shows nothing, starts too late (Score:5, Informative)
According to other articles, at the time the video starts, he'd stood up and starting walking towards the door. One of the cops grabbed his arm to escort him, he yanked his arm away and yelled "don't touch me!" Whether or not he then passively resisted leaving by going limp, or was simply thrown down and tasered, depends on who you ask.
police POV (Score:5, Interesting)
1) This kid sounds like an ass and I'm certain that there will be more than enough "He got what he deserved posts." I might even agree in the moral sense, but not in the ethical or legal sense, because....
2) This cop should never work in law enforcement again. This is inappropriate use of force by any professional standard. One post is not nearly enough to recount the things he did incorrectly, but I'll hit the high points;
General rules for any controlled encounter (one where you aren't in danger from the get go) include finding out what the issue is, telling the subject what he/she needs to do, and explaining what will happen if they do not. There is almost never a need to place your hands on anyone for any reason until you are ready to take them into custody unless you are suddenly attacked. This "officer" is grossly incompetent. Understand we deal with aggressive people that posture by yelling and swearing at us all the time - this should not disrupt the officer on bit. Keep. Your. Cool. So, screaming/swearing or not, this encounter should have been over with three sentences from the officer.
A) "Sir, per university rules and regs, I need you to show me your valid student ID or leave the library."
B) "I need to to show me your valid student ID or leave the library right now, or I'll have to take you into custody for trespassing and disturbing the peace."
C) "Sir, I am placing you under arrest." Then Mirandize him and be done with it. If he does anything but exactly what you tell him ("Sir, place your hands behind your back.") then....
Now and only now, if he/she resists (NOT if he simply fails to cooperate i.e. passive resistence), you may use force sufficient to subdue him to the point of having him cease to be a danger to the officer or bystanders. That's pretty simple stuff, folks. Basically, never be the first to use force, but when you do - do it quickly and overwhelmingly then STOP when he's restrained. You are a trained professional who owns the situation and NOT a street brawler.
From what I can tell, he never told the subject he was under arrest until after at least five taserings, some of which occurred while he was in cuffs and all but the first while he was on the ground unable to stand under his own power. This "officer" grabbed the guy's arm while he was leaving. Bad move, even if it seems like a little thing. Physical contact constitutes use of force, and any trained officer knows this is a big line to cross. I don't care if he didn't leave immediately - in that case place him calmly in custody early on and be done with it, no argument needed. You're the cop; you NEVER need to be in an argument. You aren't asking him what he wants to do, you're telling him. Never ever let a subject think they are in control. Arguing tells the subject they have some power.
What he did is inexcusable. If this power-tripping bully didn't have a badge what would you think of somebody tasering a defenseless person on the ground FIVE TIMES some while he was handcuffed and yelling at him to "get up." A badge doesn't free you from responsibility, it adds to to it exponentially.
This sadistic SOB gives all true professional LEOs a bad name and is part of the reason so many distrust cops. I've had training on most of the common less-than-lethal systems (lawyers don't let us call them non-lethal) including tasers, stun guns, pepper spray, rubber bullets and even conducted some training on the same. Unless this guy was issued a system with no training, he knows damn well the individual won't be getting up immediately after one tasing, let alone five. Frankly, I hope this guy answers for assault charges.
To summarize, to non-cops this might appear to be a case of overreacting during a tense moment with a belligerent person. To most professionals, this is about as vanilla an arrest as there is where the cop did basically everything wrong. So wrong, in fact, I intend to use these videos as a training aid.
This was so absurd that I actually laughed when the guy threatened to to taser the bystander who asked for his name and badge number. It's almost like he was trying to get fired and sued.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Professional behavior (Score:4, Insightful)
For those that don't know, this is very far from unordinary. I've hung with "bad" people and the police act like this all the time. They have the gun, they have the badge, in court they are a credible witness. Go up against them and you WILL LOSE without proof. Even with proof you are unlikely to win unless they kick the shit out of you while you stay absolutely motionless, even then you better hope your arm didn't move more than 2 inches cuz if it did you were attempting to violently assault an officer. I am exxagerating a bit but if you think this is uncharacterstic of police behavior you are ignorant (meaning that you just don't know).
Officers obviously need more training on how to handle a non dangerous situation. This comes up every time Joe Blow Black man with a rake is capped. They need to understand that having a gun, having control, does not mean using it to expedite the situation. If they have to spend 2 hours trying to calm the man down so be it. That's what they are payed to do, to keep everyone safe. Force should only be applied when NECCESSARY, and that is the downfall of this whole situation.
Unsaid at my current threshold... (Score:5, Informative)
Also, the guy was in the process of leaving when the officer(s?) grabbed his arm, that's why he shouts out "let go of me." Now I agree that the guy probably shouldn't have been such an asshole when he was asked to leave the first time, which provoked the staff to call the "cops," but he definitely didn't deserve any of this.
Also, "this is your patriot act!" --> wtf???
Bears repeating: Are cops as mature as fry cooks? (Score:5, Insightful)
The perfect reply to this argument (which comes up every time someone mentions that most cops are assholes) is this: a McDonald's employee has more accountability than a cop does. As a 16 year old burger-flipper, if a customer acts like a complete asshole--even going so far as to yelling and cussing you out--you are NOT allowed to verbally abuse the customer in return in any way, shape or form. At most you can ask him/her to leave the building, that's it.
Years ago, I worked at McDonald's for four months and a very good friend of mine was punched in the face. Through a plate glass window. A woman tried to order at the pickup window, was told she needed to drive around again, so she punched through the drive-through window, hitting my friend in the face. If she (my friend) had hit her back, there's not a doubt in my mind that she would have lost her job. Instead, she walked away calmly and called her supervisor and the police.
Now, I'm not implying that the police shouldn't use force when necessary. I'm also not denying that they're human too, that it's a nasty, dirty job and I'm sure it's really rough on them. But you know what? Working at McDonald's is in many was rougher (if you doubt this, I could tell you some more horror stories... absolutely the worst 4 months of my life, period.), and yet their workers are held to a much higher standard than the police. Why is that? Why do so many of us make allowances for the police to exercise HUGE leaps of personal discretion, to bend the law whenever it suits them? It's a tough job, but they chose it and we shouldn't let them bend the rules (or ignore them) whenever they feel like it. I saw a TON of asshole customers at McDonalds, yet I didn't say a foul word to any of them. I didn't spit in their food either (no one did--they would've been fired on the spot.) I did my job as professionally as I could, regardless of how shitty I was treated.
And I was a fucking fry cook!
Please please please please PLEASE tell me we can hold our police officers up to the same standards as our burger flippers.
from the latims (Score:5, Informative)
UCLA police confirmed late Monday that the officer who fired the Taser gun was Terrence Duren, who has served in the university's Police Department for 18 years.
Duren, who was named officer of the year in 2001, also has been involved in several controversial incidents on campus.
In an interview with The Times on Monday night, Duren, 43, defended his record as a campus police officer and urged people to withhold judgment until the review of his Taser use is completed.
"I patrol this area the same way I would want someone to patrol the neighborhoods where I live," he said. "People make allegations against cops all the time. Saying one thing and proving it are two different things."
While he would not directly talk about why he used the Taser on the student, he said 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 said. "If you have to use some force, it's not going to look pretty. That's the nature of this job."
A student's cellphone video of the incident has been broadcast around the world and focused much criticism on the officer.
But Duren -- who was back on duty at the UCLA campus Monday night -- said he can roll with these punches and wants to explain himself to students critical of his actions.
"In this line of business, you have to have a thick skin," he added. "I am proud of my service as a cop."
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 nightly 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 repeated requests to provide identification or to leave. The officers decided to use the Taser to incapacitate Tabatabainejad 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.
The video shows portions of the incident, in which Tabatabainejad can be heard screaming in pain when the Taser shocks are administered.
The tape, which has been broadcast on the YouTube website and TV newscasts, prompted widespread criticism both on campus and from outsiders. On Friday, more than 200 students held a march to the police station, while acting Chancellor Norman Abrams tried to quell the critics by announcing an independent investigation of the Taser use. Abrams said UCLA had received numerous e-mails and calls from concerned alumni and parents.
Tabatabainejad's attorney, Stephen Yagman, said his client was shocked five times with the Taser after he refused to show his ID because he thought he was being singled out for his Middle Eastern appearance. Tabatabainejad is of Iranian descent but is a U.S. citizen by birth and a resident of Los Angeles.
Duren said Monday that he joined the UCLA police force after being fired from the Long Beach Police Department in the late 1980s. He said he was a probationary officer at the time and was let go because of poor report-writing skills and geographical knowledge.
In May 1990, he was accused of using his nightstick to choke someone who was hanging out on a Saturday in front of a UCLA fraternity. Kente S. Scott alleged that Duren confronted him while he was walking on the street outside the Theta Xi fraternity house.
Scott sued the university, and according to court records, UCLA officials moved to have Duren dismissed from the police force. But after an independent administrative hearing, officials ove
Ridiculous (Score:5, Informative)
It's this sort of crap that's going to get a very useful and life-saving tool taken away from cops who use it right.
There's no reason to deploy a taser on someone who is ALREADY ON THE GROUND AND NO LONGER FIGHTING!
I have used my taser as a police officer twice. The first time, the wires broke on contact and I had to chase him. The second time, the guy fell to the ground and became verbally and physically compliant.
Tasers cannot be used as FREAKING CATTLE PRODS! They're a sophisticated, useful tool that is meant to incapacitate a VIOLENT criminal in order to protect *both* the officer and the offender from serious bodily injury. When deployed in a sensible, responsible fashion, tasers save lives. When used 3 to 5 times on a compliant subject on the ground, they don't help.
In Florida (where I am a sworn law enforcement officer), most agencies are not allowed to use a taser unless a subject is actively resisting arrest (i.e. fighting and/or running away). A large powerful agency nearby was using them on everyone for passive resistance (i.e. "I'm Ofc. Jones, who are you?" "Screw you pig!" *taser*)
Re:Hahh!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hahh!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good job UCPD (Score:4, Insightful)
Ooh, the irony.
Maybe if they should have broken his kneecaps with their clubs, maybe then he'd wise up and walk away!
Re:Good job UCPD (Score:5, Informative)
I can't believe how stupid some of you are. Seriously.
1) If 3 officers are incapable of restraining someone who is resisting verbally but isn't even resisting physically, they shouldn't have a job.
2) If 3 officers are unable to carry a guy out of there, they shouldn't have a job.
3) Tasers and other "nonlethal" weapons are meant for self defense against a threat of violence, not for passive (albeit annoying) resistors.
4) Hey, you dumb fucks wondering why he still wouldn't move after the 3rd time -- many people's muscles are immobilized to the point of being unable to walk for about 10 minutes after the first time.
Re:Good job UCPD (Score:5, Informative)
While I agree that this episode is a pretty clear example of excessive force, the above statement is not accurate. Although my department doesn't use tasers, I presume that the courts consider tasers as occupying the same rung in the ladder of escalating force guidelines as pepper spray. Police officers (I am one) are trained to use non-lethal force options such as these when the arrestee is actively resisting but not threatening violence. Examples of active resistance include fleeing, attempting to break free from a compliance hold, etc. If the officer were actually be threatened with bodily harm, the guidelines stipulate that he should escalate to the baton (as long as the suspect is not himself armed).
I can't really tell what's going on from the video but if the arrestee was already handcuffed and was simply not walking then use of the taser should not have been authorized. Realistically speaking, the courts tend to give arresting officers a lot of leeway because they feel that it is difficult to judge officers' heat-of-the-moment decisions when one has the benefit of time to weigh and reflect upon the facts. In my opinion, the courts give too much leeway. While there are certainly instances where the best use-of-force decision is not clear, the majortiy of officers make bad decisions not because they're afraid or anxious, but because they are bad officers who are either unable or unwilling to effectively balance law enforcement and constitutional protections.
The reality of the status-quo is that police work attracts high-school grads and GED's whose priorities are being respected and retiring with a decent pension. As civilians, you have the power to affect this problem. If you want consciencious yet capable officers, you have to pay for them. Force your local politicians to fire and prosecute consistently and have them pay officers enough to attract educated individuals who want to positively affect their communities.
Re:Good job UCPD (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Say it's a fake (Score:5, Insightful)
On a side note, it'll be interesting to see how the officers justify their refusal to give their badge numbers (which was reportedly followed up with a threat to the person who asked). It makes it appear that they knew what they did was an excessive use of force, and were trying to hide their identities. That will look EXTREMELY bad to a judge and/or jury.
Re:Got what he deserved (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Got what he deserved (Score:5, Insightful)
Nonlethals have just become a substitute for good police work.
The number one test of a good officer is how well he (or she) can solve a problem without resorting to the use of force. If he can look someone in the eye, figure out what is going through that person's head, and assert the authority or voice the reasoning necessary to get compliance with a lawful request, he has done his job properly. Resorting to force to compel behavior is already a kind of failure. Of course there are some people out there who are just hell-bent on harming others - that's why the option of force exists - but clearly that's not what Tabatabainejad was about.
And resorting to force to compel behavior when the person in question is not being violent and is causing no harm to anyone, well, that's beyond failure as an officer, that's failure as a human being.
The officers who did this are a far greater threat to safety on the UCLA campus than that student would ever be. I do hope the university administration recognizes this and responds accordingly. If they do not, then we must seriously question the administration's commitment to protecting their students.
Since Im out of mod points... (Score:5, Insightful)
Four Officers... one kid come on.. They could have talked this kid into the handcuffs, while he was a jerk he wasnt exactly a threat.
Sorry the police are here to serve and protect, their actions are the actions of thugs who enjoy weilding power. So while I might not be deeply sorry for the kid, I am deeply ashamed of the actions of the law enforcement officials.
Storm
Re:Got what he deserved (Score:4, Informative)
First of all, how many people do you know that first of all would go through the trouble of getting tased just to get one belief out there? Second of all, how many people do you know that actually expect to get videoed just because they're shouting their beliefs in the library? Third, how many "morons" do you know that become "rich" because they saying what they felt was true so they were tased by police 5 times? Furthermore, he was tased while on the ground being told if he didn't get up he'd be tased again!
According to an article by Silja J.A. Talvi [inthesetimes.com], "People who have experienced the effect of a Taser typically liken it to a debilitating, full-body seizure, complete with mental disorientation and loss of control over bodily functions."
So next time you think you're going to be wise and bitch about how people can make so much money off of such an easy thing, try it before you do it!
Re:old news (Score:5, Insightful)
Slashdot is a discussion forum. The power here is not timeliness, it's the audience.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Old News But New Perspective (Score:5, Interesting)
The supreme court has said the following: (http://www.fbi.gov/publications/leb/1997/oct975.
1) the severity of the crime; The guy did not show his student card! This is not a severe crime!
2) whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others; The guy is a student who fell to the ground and did not move. He did not fight, nor raise a fist, nada!
3) whether the suspect actively is resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight; He resisted arrest, but did not run away. He became a clump of lead.
Put these factors in, and the security guards went way over the line and used excessive force. There is a civil lawsuit here. Some people said "why did he mention the patriot act?" Simple because of my referenced link where the supreme court explicitly said, "Hey you can only use so much force, which the patriot act nullifies."
Re:Old News But New Perspective (Score:5, Insightful)
You should watch the video, it's pretty clear from that that he didn't deserve to be tased, or at least didn't deserve to be tased over and over again.
Background (not in the video): After 11 you have to have a Bruincard. He didn't have his and was told to leave by a CSO. When he didn't leave immediately, they called campus police.
From what you can see/hear, the first contact with the security comes when they grab his arm - according to other students, he was leaving, having been told by a CSO that he had to - and he tells them to "get off". At this point they tase him to the ground. When he's finished screaming in pain, you can't see what's happening, but it sounds like they've dragged him to the door. There are a couple of security guards there at this point. They tell him to get up. He doesn't, instead trying to explain that he was trying to leave, and begging them not to tase him again. It's been pointed out that due to the effects of the taser he may not physically have been able to stand at this stage. They tase him again. He still doesn't stand. They tase him again. After a while, they seem to realise that this isn't getting him on his feet. At this stage, several students have asked for their names and badge numbers. One of them was told he would be tased if he didn't shut up. The officer was holding a taser when he said this. The others were simply ignored.
Now that the student is no longer deemed to be a threat to the (at least) 3 armed police standing over him, he is handcuffed. Before being dragged out of the room, he is tased one last time.
I couldn't watch the whole video in one go, so I'm not sure where the fifth use of the taser comes in.
I'm disgusted by what I saw in the video. Seriously. The taser was their first resort against a student who was - according to the other students - cooperating. Even after using the taser to knock him down, they didn't search him for weapons, they didn't handcuff him. They just kept on tasering. Once the guy's already on the floor and surrounded, I don't understand why you would keep using weapons to hurt him.
According to the article, the taser is used by officers when there is "a potential for injury to the officer(s) or others" or a "potential risk of serious injury to the individual being controlled." He was on the floor, shouting that he was trying to leave. He was clearly no threat to anyone, least of all himself. And the officers obviously knew that they were in the wrong, since they threatened witnesses with violence to try to buy their silence.
To me it's obvious what should happen. Every one of these officers should be immediately fired while a criminal case is prepared for torturing a helpless young man. They should go to jail under federal anti-torture law, which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years.
Re:Old News But New Perspective (Score:4, Informative)
I didn't try to claim the video shows everything, it doesn't. I know he was handcuffed, I just believe that should have happened much earlier - and that once he was handcuffed he shouldn't have been tased.
According to all the sources, the officers were using the "drive stun" mode of the taser. Rather than using the famous barbs, this simply functions like any other stun gun, requiring the officer shocking him to bend down over him to use the weapon. As with all uses of stun guns, it causes extreme pain, and uses a mixture of pain and nerve disruption to subdue a resisting offender - although it is worth noting that this particular application focuses mostly on the pain aspect. Considering that there were at least three armed officers present and that the suspect was on the floor shouting not "nonsense" or incitement (this is an accusation made by the officers - it isn't born out by the video and is directly contradicted by the students), but rather screaming that he had been trying to leave and begging them not to hit him with it again. What possible reason could there be for tasing him three times before handcuffing him? What possible reason could there be for tasing a handcuffed person? And if the officers were so blameless, why did they threaten witnesses asking for their badge numbers?
He didn't try to run away. He was trying to leave. And he was trying to leave not because the police were trying to question him, but because he had been told to leave. By all available accounts, he was on his way out when he was stopped by the police (I can't seem to find a police response). When accosted by the police he didn't try to run, he fell limply to the floor - hardly a perfect response, but not one that I would immediately associate with violent intent! If the police were trying to handcuff him, they could have asked him to put his hands flat on the floor. They could have overpowered him. They could have used their taser to subdue him and then handcuff him. Instead, they chose to tase him over and over again first. Why?
I don't claim to have a perfect response to the situation. But if I was a police officer, supported by two of my colleagues, I hope I would have behaved well enough to be comfortable giving out my badge number instead of threatening the student asking for it.
Re:Old News But New Perspective (Score:4, Insightful)
So according to your account of the events an otherwise routine trespassing call had 50 kids screaming and ranting at cops BEFORE the cops had done anything? The crowd was not what provoked the situation, the guy screaming brought the crowd and the repeated tasering of him while on the ground is what got the crowd angry. Next, please find the quote in the video or other accounts wherein the suspect was inciting the crowd to attack the officers. Hint you won't find it, yelling "this is your patriot act, this is your police brutality" is NOT incitement to riot/attack police. Saying somthing like "get these fucking cops off me" or "someone do something" might be construed in that fashion, but nothing he yells is anything like those statements.
Another hint - he WAS handcuffed
Here's a hint for you, after the suspect is handcuffed and subdued it's excessive use of force to taser him again unless he is violently resisting. He's not violently resisting (key word 'violently') at any point, and especially after he is in cuffs. It's very straightforward in law: if the suspect is subdued, further use of force, in this case tasering, is unjustified.
The officers did what they were supposed to do when confronted with a non-cooperative individual who is lying limply,
Bzzzt wrong again, what they are supposed to do when someone is lying limply is subdue them and place them under arrest. Officers are taught numerous techniques for immobilizing a suspect and handcuffing them. After the first taser shock while he is on the ground it would have been trivial to handcuff him and place him under arrest which was not done. Are you seriously saying here that any time an officer encounters a limp person who doesn't cooperate they should first taser them? Yeah, that sounds completely reasonable and very legal. I challenged you to produce any police procedure, training manual, or law that indicates that is the proper course of action.
I agree the kid was being a complete ass, and yelling at an officer is never a good way to resolve things. In fact I will go so far as to say the first use of the taser may have been justified. However, once the taser has been employed the subject needs to be subdued, the officers chose instead to give him orders and tase him when he did not follow them (nevermind the legitimate argument that because of the shock he MAY not have been physically able to comply). A taser is not designed or issued to officers as a motivational tool, or to induce subjects to comply with orders, it is for incapacitating a violent or forcefully uncooperative suspect, the next step being taking them into custody and/or handcuffing them. Police training stipulates these are non-lethal takedown devices, not motivational aids, to be used in lieu of other uses of force when required. And the law also requires that any force used be justified and PROPORTIONAL to the threat. Tasings 3, 4 and 5 in this particular case were no longer in proportion to the threat, no matter how legitimate the first two may have been.
The force used in this video is necessary for some violent suspects, and in many other cases might have been warranted, but in THIS CASE the use of force appears to be patently gratuitous and needs to be addressed by a formal review of the officers actions and some form of punishment if found to be in violation of police procedure/the law, which it most likely is.
Re:Iranian Bigot (Score:5, Insightful)
Terrorism is, you know, about, uh, terror I think. It seems its working with you. By saying you are happy that this guy got tasered, you are entering their game. You acknowledge that you are afraid of them. And beside, now they can tell: "See, Americans are not respecting the rights they are promoting".
Re:Old News But New Perspective (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:abuse of power? I don't agree. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:abuse of power? I don't agree. (Score:5, Insightful)
A lot of people are making the point that, "He was just begging for an ass kicking." Quite possibly true. However, it is not law enforcement's role to provide him one. The only, and I mean _ONLY_ time law enforcement is justified in physically attacking (as opposed to restraining) someone is when they pose a danger to themselves or those around them. Then they are to use the minimum amount of force necessary to subdue and restrain the person. Tasers are not tools of expediency.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ever try to restrain a person who's resisting with all his might? It takes a lot to wrestle a guy into handcuffs when he's kicking and flailing. Not to mention, it was not '5 policemen and one student'; it was 5 policemen and some unknown number of students forming what could loosel
Re:Noticed something about this (Score:4, Interesting)
Whether you or i agree on his opinions, he does have a right to protest and he was doing it non-violently. We don't know if this guy was just stirring shit or has been a repeated victim of profiling by the campus cops in the previous weeks. But what we do know is that the cops took it too far as shown clear as day on video.
Re:Noticed something about this (Score:4, Informative)
Had they just arrested him quietly in the overwhelming numbers they had, then this wouldn't have occurred.
It was their poor choice that lead to the escalation of the situation and the danger it created. The guy acted like an asshole, they're trained to deal with it. They chose to obviously ignore that training and throw caution to the wind and go with the most violent and reaction inducing method out there short of shooting him or beating him.
If a police officer grabs you for no good reason then its assault and/or false arrest/confinement.
Just because they're police officers doesn't mean they can go around grabbing whoever they want for whatever reason just because they feel like it.
He may have told the security guard he wasn't going to leave, but he was in the process of leaving when the police arrived and grabbed him. As far as I understand trespass law, if he was making his way towards the nearest exit, he should have been fine.
Re:A victim? (Score:5, Insightful)