Texsox Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Nov 21, 2006 -> 03:04 PM) wow. Great article. I realize after reading the article that PA is probably right, it was the kids fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 Hm. Highly unlikely that he was fired for poor writing skills and geographical knowledge. PD's invest a lot of money and time training an officer through the academy, then on the force. Once you've gotten on, they generally won't let you go for trainable skills like that. They let people go if they can't handle the job. Hard to say about the homeless guy and the frat member (I wouldn't take the word of either of them or the officer as bible in this case), but that firing raises a red flag for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sox4lifeinPA Posted November 22, 2006 Author Share Posted November 22, 2006 it's all based on perception and how you weigh evidence as an individual. UCLA police officials said in a short statement that Duren arrived at Powell Library with Officer Alexis Bicomong. Duren "discharged the Taser," the statement said. Officers Kevin Kilgore, Andrew Ikeda and Ricardo Bolanos, and Sgt. Philip Baguliao, a supervisor, were also at the scene. I perceive a situation where 4 other cops PLUS a supervisor are present as something that if Duren acted improperly there was sufficient backup to step in and do so. Tex, you can be as cynical as you want. I'm not saying this kid deserved it, but I would say I don't blame them for taking this route. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted November 22, 2006 Share Posted November 22, 2006 QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Nov 21, 2006 -> 11:07 PM) Tex, you can be as cynical as you want. I'm not saying this kid deserved it, but I would say I don't blame them for taking this route. I don't think you can have it both ways. You can't one one hand say the kid didn't deserve it *and* say you don't blame the police. The kid was tased; if he deserved it, he was wrong. If he didn't deserve it, the cop was wrong. We are talking shades of right and wrong here because of school rules regarding the taser. I believe, at the minimum, it was excessive and would take action along those lines. The cop has to have the sense to know what is appropriate use of force, and this was a not one, but a couple steps past appropriate. No one was in danger except the person the cop put in danger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sox4lifeinPA Posted November 22, 2006 Author Share Posted November 22, 2006 QUOTE(Texsox @ Nov 22, 2006 -> 07:50 AM) I don't think you can have it both ways. You can't one one hand say the kid didn't deserve it *and* say you don't blame the police. The kid was tased; if he deserved it, he was wrong. If he didn't deserve it, the cop was wrong. We are talking shades of right and wrong here because of school rules regarding the taser. I believe, at the minimum, it was excessive and would take action along those lines. The cop has to have the sense to know what is appropriate use of force, and this was a not one, but a couple steps past appropriate. No one was in danger except the person the cop put in danger. I don't think you can have it both ways. You can't one one hand say the kid didn't deserve it *and* say you don't blame the police. sure i can. I don't think the kid should have been tased because it shouldn't be an option. They could have had that kids face to the floor and drug out in handcuffs. However, because it was an option and the kid was non complying to the officer's request, they hit him with the taser. So I can in fact have my cake and eat it too. the student was inciting other students to join his resistance...that's enough for me. That's what I would hit this kid with from a legal standpoint. Inciting a riot, resisting arrest, failure to comply with police requests, etc. the kid is a douche, end of story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted November 22, 2006 Share Posted November 22, 2006 I don't have access to UCLA's policies on the use of force - just the one about Tasers. But let me add something here about that. In my previous department, we also had specific clauses about specific weapons and such (though we generally didn't use tasers). But what was also present in the force policy was a blanket statement about the use of force, with a very key phrase: "Necessary and reasonable". That was the overriding theme. The individual clauses after that may have specifically allowed for, or prevented, some specific actions. But that does not mean that all actions allowed in those clauses created an open legal space where that allowance was all-encompassing. All those allowances were still conditioned by "necessary and reasonable". I think that is the key to the discussion here. If a kid is being verbally abusive, but not physically so, is using the taser to subdue him necessary and reasonable to affect arrest/detainment/removal? I personally would have taken other action. That other action may have been just as dangerous, potentially. But it wouldn't have created as much of a spectacle. But this officer, and apparently his supervisor and other officers, felt differently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sox4lifeinPA Posted December 12, 2006 Author Share Posted December 12, 2006 Interesting there hasn't been any news recently... perhaps this douche nozzle college student realized he had no case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts