Talk:UCLA Taser incident

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the UCLA Taser incident article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

This article was nominated for deletion on 17 November 2006. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Contents 1 POV 2 Good job destroying all the reference formating. 3 POV redux 4 Hostile bystander? 5 YouTube video 6 Quality 7 Removal of Lancet article mention? 8 Rename to Powell Library Incident 9 Officer History 10 I removed mention of the Iranian Prime Minister's comment 11 Details on the tasering... 12 Duren on "active duty" 13 Baha'i? 14 Image:Mostafa Tabatabainejad.JPG 15 Transcription of Video 16 Summary: Student versus Intruder 17 Separate Officers section? 18 4 Vids in LA that week, not 3 19 Someone edit this please 20 Remember BLP

[edit] POV

This page is facing major POV issues. The information is presented in a heavily biased manner, portraying the campus police in an extremely negative light.
Here is a sample in the intro: "police officers can be seen pepper spraying a handcuffed suspect in the face", sourced with LA Times article that does not even mention the incidence. The quote contains loaded language, as "in the face" has a negative connotation. Also, pepper spray can only be properly used by spraying in the face...spraying any other body parts will probably not invoke the desired results.
Many of the sourced articles contain quotes that present the campus police officers as only doing their jobs in removing an unruly student. However, none of these quotes made it into the page.
Furthermore, the page makes no mention of Tabatabainejad heavy use of profanity (dropping the f-bomb several time at the top of his lungs), which can constitute verbal assault against the officers. Overall, this page needs major work in order to present the incident in a balanced manner. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 01:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you're overstating the POV issue in the other direction. I think there's a balance, but even the articles on the subject don't support much of a "it was the kid's fault" position as you're looking for. --Bobak 01:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

You may have misread the LA Times article you cited: it brings up a now infamous video that came out in recent weeks of "a Los Angeles Police Department officer dousing a handcuffed suspect in the face with pepper spray as the suspect sat in a patrol car." This is a major issue in the LA area at the moment. This UCLA video has come out in what has been a rash of videos of police doing things that have got serious attention (good or bad). LA Times article brings the two incidences (along with a third) into context. As for writing about the "f-bombs" being construed as "verbal assault" --I'm fairly sure that (1) the cause of action you're looking for isn't called that and (2) it's also assuming that things were done that we do not know about. With that said, even as a Trojan, I have faith that UCLA can get to the bottom of it --and that the article should reflect those findings. --Bobak 01:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

One last thing: I find your POV removal to be acceptable ;-) --Bobak 02:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not looking for "it's the kid's fault" position, but a balanced one. The source for the pepper spraying does not mention anything about pepper spraying, even after the second time I read it. At best, the source is misplaced. Also, the source itself contained quotes like "I study in Powell Library at night all the time. I've seen people without ID cards who are removed. But none of the time has it been this dramatic" and "[the campus police] seem like a peacekeeping force." None of those quotes are in the page.
I'm a staff writer for my high school and my adviser grilled the newspaper staff regarding the whole libel issue, so I get nervous if the article leaves a impression of the subject being wronged. Rarely is any issue so black and white as the page makes it appear (leaving an impression of typical police brutality finding a new victim).
Oh...and I'm glad you liked my POV removal edit. ^_^ Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct

Not true. The 8th paragraph on the 2nd page of the referenced LA Times article:

"UCLA is a very peaceful campus," said Chen Mei, a third-year political science student from Laguna Hills. "I study in Powell Library at night all the time. I've seen people without ID cards who are removed. But none of the time has it been this dramatic."

The second to last paragraph, and part of the last paragraph:

Julia Newbold, a third-year English literature major from Walnut Creek, said her impression from her limited contact with campus police was good.

"They seem like a peacekeeping force," she said.

And, if you Bother to go back to the first page of the article, it says:

The incident was the third videotape of an arrest to surface in the last week in Los Angeles.

One video showed a Los Angeles Police Department officer dousing a handcuffed suspect in the face with pepper spray as the suspect sat in a patrol car.12.110.196.19 03:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

How so? You requoted what I had previously quoted: quotes from Mei and Newbold. Here is a copy and paste of the quote from my previous comment:
"I study in Powell Library at night all the time. I've seen people without ID cards who are removed. But none of the time has it been this dramatic" and "[the campus police] seem like a peacekeeping force."
When quoting someone, you do not have to reproduce every word he or she said, as long as it's not taken out of context. Also, the source was linked to the second page of the article (linked to the first page now), so I did not realize that there was a first page to even "go back" to (my apologies). Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 03:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Not True. Not a POV issue. Watch the video. There is no POV issue. And if there was, it merely needs an adjustment to stance, not a deletion. Is it the police trying to cover this up? I'd say so. 149.167.208.159 07:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Huh?!? This is kind of getting out of hand. An anonymous user started the bold text format...It's not a vote.
Since the page got much more balance, I'm no longer claiming a POV issue. I only have a problem with quotes that seem to support the officers' actions that are not currently included in the page. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 07:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

---

What was the young man's race? That may shed a lot of light on why the cops did what they did —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.33.185.185 (talk • contribs) 10:03, November 17, 2006.

He is an Iranian American. With a name like Mustafa, the police officers knowing that he was probably Muslim isnt too far fetched. LA police are known to be racist and brutal.Khosrow II

Well that right there would explain it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.33.185.185 (talk • contribs) 10:11, November 17, 2006.

The UCLA police department is not the same thing as the LAPD. For one, they have much broader latitude to employ tasers against passive resistors. If anything, people should be arguing against UCPD policy on tasers, not with the cops themselves. Ford MF 21:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Video evidence shows many of the things portrayed in the article happening. How can it be POV or bias when video and eyewitnesses confirm it? -Rokbloom

I watched the whole video and there is a POV issue. The source is only as good as it the way it is transcribed. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 20:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Does anyone know about Tabatabainejad's Facebook profile change documented at http://www.bruinpied.com/2006/11/18/student-changes-facebook-profile-in-lieu-of-pending-lawsuit/ ? Timothy Clemans 23:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good job destroying all the reference formating.

Not directed at anyone in particular, but now the article looks cheap. --Bobak 19:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Um. What? You're going to have to be a good deal more specific. Exploding Boy 20:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Pretty easy to figure out (using the history tab), but I was refering to this. --Bobak 20:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV redux

I agree, watch the video if you think the POV is off. Otherwise, wait for the trial to begin or for further testimony/evidence from the campus police, before making further revisions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.141.70.150 (talk • contribs) 17:16, November 18, 2006.

The very fact this article is up for deletion proves the effort of people in this country to cover up crimes against Middle-Easterners in a "post 9/11" world, if this guy was another racial minority, there would be Watts Riots and Rodney King-like protests. But everyone turns their head because the guys an Iranian-American and most people can't determine the difference between Al-Qaida and the average Middle-Easterner out there. Heres a quote I think that needs to be read by all of you that shirk this off as "cops doing their job", Martin Niemöller said (roughly): "They came for the communists, but I was not a communist, so I did not protest. Then they came for the trade-unionists, but I was not a trade-unionist, so I did not protest. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, so I did not protest. Then they came for me, and there was noone left to protest". Haramzadi 23:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a little paranoid...but it's standard policy on Wikipedia to make certain the subject is significant enough to warrant a full page. If not for that policy, there would a page for every criminal or victim every connected to a crime or significant event. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 23:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with that! Ford MF 22:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hostile bystander?

In the video I watched, the bystander very calmly asks the officer for his identification, and the officer responds with his threat of Tasering. Why is the bystander described as hostile? Is there something inherently hostile in asking a police officer for ID? Thedangerouskitchen 00:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

That was added by User:Truce57 as part of several edits, some of which included strongly POV material. I have reverted the parts of his/her edits that violate WP:NPOV, including the judgment that the said protester was "hostile." Dylan 00:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Based on the little I've read, the police officer in this situation is actually committing a form of illegal assault if he threatens someone who is asking for his badge number Bwithh 00:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The student is reportedly Laila Gordy [1] Bwithh 00:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Around 4:55 in the video, there are two male students visible standing near the police officers, one wearing a white shirt and one a blue shirt. White shirt appears agitated - shouting and repeatedly gesticulating. He is eventually confronted by an officer:

6:35:
O: Back up a little, back up.
[unintelligible, white shirt and officer; white shirt gestures]
O: Get back over there or you're going to get tased too.
[white shirt steps back]

I would like to add this information in some form to add context to the statement that officers threatened to tase bystanders. Any help would be appreciated. Flatscan 03:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

By definition, they aren't "bystanders" if they are getting up in the officer's face. I would use a wording more like, "When other students began to display aggressive behavior, officers threatened to tase them." It's one thing if someone says, "Excuse me, sir, can I get your badge number?" But white-shirt was right up in his face being quite animated and probably dangerous close to getting arrested himself for interfering.--70.144.64.36 18:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd have a problem with the precise language you suggest, because it seems borderline POV to me. I think any attempt to editorialize on the officer's justification is going to cause problems for some readers. I actually prefer Flatscan's version, above, even though it's arguably more detail than that particular moment on the tape warrants, because it limits itself to the facts, rather than implying that the officer's action was justified. I wonder about the "Get back over there..." part of the quote. When I listened to it, I thought the officer was saying, "Get back upstairs..." But I haven't listened to that part carefully. --John Callender 19:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

"Hostile" was included in my original edit to indicate confrontational, not aggressive. Agree that it could be interpreted as POV. Flatscan's account above is accurate. It should be noted that at no time do we hear white shirt's words, specifically we do not hear him request any information from the officer.--Truce57 19:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm 80% sure that "over there" is the correct transcription, but I can hear how it could be heard as "upstairs." Since the distinction isn't important, it may be best to use ellipsis to avoid committing to an exact transcription that a reader/editor may dispute. Perhaps ellipsis in the article and both versions in the Talk is what we want. Flatscan 20:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] YouTube video

Generally speaking, Wikipedia should not link to YouTube for copyright concerns. However, I posed this question at "Can I Use..." (see Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Can I use...#Mostafa Tabatabainejad), and it seems that since the creator of the video must have put it online him or herself, it isn't a copyright violation.

Just wanted to make a note of that here to avoid possible edit wars of adding and removing it... Dylan 15:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I know we can't host it, but what's wrong with linking to copyrighted content?? — Omegatron 20:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Watching that video made my whole week. What a spoiled brat.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.81.118.101 (talk • contribs).

Be nice....maybe on YouTube, but not on Wikipedia. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 21:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quality

I just got here, and I found this article to be extremely well-written and informative, especially given how recent and controversial the subject is. I know a lot I didn't before I came here. Thanks, everyone. --Masamage 02:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Can someone find a place to "introduce" Stephen Yagman? His first appearance in the article is just as "Yagman."--Spencer 08:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Lancet article mention?

Information about whether being shocked in the "drive stun" mode could have rendered Tabatabainejad incapable of standing might qualify for explicit inclusion in the article. An early Daily Bruin article made a point of citing the 2001 Lancet article ("Effects of stun guns and tasers", Fish RM, Geddes LA) as stating that a tasered individual could suffer short-term paralysis; at one point that was mentioned in this article, but then the mention was removed by TheCynic with an edit summary indicating that the Lancet article only dealt with the implanted-electrode mode where a suspect is "shot" with the taser gun, and so was irrelevant to this case, in which the Taser was used in "drive stun" mode. I've been unable to locate a free copy of the Lancet article online, and don't currently have access to the paid full-text version. It seems to me that in light of widespread speculation that Tabatabainejad might have been unable to comply with the officers' repeated demands for him to stand up, that's an important enough point that it should be covered explicitly in the article, with an appropriate citation. Does anyone have access to the original Lancet article? --John Callender 04:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm all in favor of adding information on this if someone can find something talking about non-penetrating taser usage causing paralysis. Or if there's anything from the Lancet article someone feels IS relevant, they could quote that. The problem is the original quote cited Bruin, but Bruin themselves did not quote the Lancet article, they only loosely paraphrased a conclusion. The significant difference between a taser in barb-firing mode and in "stun-drive" mode is that the barbs penetrate skin (delivering a much more effective shock, as the skin would have offered electrical resistance) and tend to hit far enough apart (>2 inches) that they really do cause loss of control of muscle groups. Therefore, a real hit with taser barbs really can make you unable to get back up, possibly for several minutes, as studies have shown. However, if the barbs don't hit far enough apart (less than 2 inches) you won't get major muscle paralysis and in drive-stun mode, where there is neither penetration nor wide seperation of the shock points, I've never heard of paralysis being caused. --TheCynic 04:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Where did you learn it? Is it something that could be cited in the article? -- John Callender 05:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

We're quoting what they said in the Bruin article. If there's additional information available (eg: that such effects are limited to non-drive stun uses) then we can add those. But there's no reason to delete factual quotes at all. Exploding Boy 06:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

That might be a little awkward...it's like quoting someone quoting some source. It'll be cleaner if the page was directly sourced by the original source. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 07:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Right. And if I'm not mistaken, the point of TheCynic's deletion was that the Daily Bruin was paraphrasing a conclusion of the Lancet article that, in the context of the entire Lancet article, actually did not apply to Tabatabainejad's case. I'm mostly just looking to make that information explicit in the article, since I've seen a lot of people offer that interpretation of the event (that Tabatabainejad would have been incapacitated by the tasering, so it was abusive and nonsensical for the officers to keep shocking him as a way to compel him to stand up and walk out under his own power). It sounds like the reality is more likely to be that Tabatabainejad was intentionally going limp in order to be non-cooperative, and the officers were intentionally using the taser in drive stun mode in order to inflict pain as a means of compelling him to stop doing that. I think that gets to a larger issue of the proper use of tasers and the proper role of police faced with a nonviolent protestor that I'd like to see treated more directly in this article. Maybe I can take a stab at adding that somewhere. I've hesitated to do so until now because of my sense that it would take a certain amount of reorganization to fit it in appropriately, and with a controversial article like this, I see that as something of a minefield. --John Callender 15:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. I wanted to actually say something in the article about the difference between "drive-stun" mode and an actual taser hit, but I couldn't find anything I thought was a good, citable source. So I decided it was best to leave it to "just the (supported) facts" and maybe someone else can find a good source later. I think the writer of the Bruin article just didn't understand the difference between an actual taser hit (with barbs) and this "drive-stun" mode, which is basically the same as a civilian "stun gun" that you can buy for self defense and isn't nearly as effective (or harmful) as a taser hit. We're really having to skirt the actual debate at the center of this, which is, "Is it acceptable for police to use pain as a method of obtaining cooperation from suspects?" The UCLA police have the authority to zap passive resistors in drive-stun mode, as quoted from their own policies in the Wikipedia entry. Whether they SHOULD is another question that's really outside the scope of an encyclopedia entry. --TheCynic 16:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I found a copy of the Lancet article online. The key was knowing that it was published 1 September 2001. It explicitly states that electrodes spaced 5cm apart do not interfere with motor function. In the next paragraph, it states that a 3-5s stun gun discharge can leave the target "immobilised" or disoriented for a period of time due to pain, not paralysis. I believe that the Daily Bruin text is potentially misleading. I also found the abstract of (2). The study was conducted by measuring electric shock devices, then comparing the measurements to prior studies; not by testing the devices directly on human subjects. Flatscan 03:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree that that question is outside the scope of an encyclopedia entry. To the extent there's a controversy surrounding that question, I think we could present an encyclopediac treatment of the controversy, and if a debate over that question emerges as a significant part of the aftermath of this incident, I think the article should cover it. But yeah, it's going to be tricky to do that without getting into a for/against advocacy mess that I agree would not be appropriate. --John Callender 19:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

According to the references I just added, "drive stun" causes pain but not incapacitation. — Omegatron 20:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Good find. I quoted a snippet out of there and put it in front of your added reference just for extra clarity on what Drive Stun means. (actually, that quote kind of looks out of place...maybe we could add "Drive Stun" information to the Taser page as a new subsection and create a link to it anywhere in the article where "Drive Stun" is mentioned?) --TheCynic 20:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Great idea. Here's a definition list from Taser themselves, although there might be better references. — Omegatron 21:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I created a "Drive Stun" section under TASER and converted a few cases of "Drive Stun" into a WikiLink from this article. Any more we want to say about Drive Stun can be included over there. I picked out a couple reference quotes to get it started.--TheCynic 23:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm still seeing the "physically unable" misinformation floating around. I intend to add back the Daily Bruin's paraphrasing and conclusion immediately followed by a direct quote from the Lancet article. The Lancet quotation doesn't refute the Daily Bruin so much as split a hair that needs to be split: physical paralysis versus mental disorientation leading to perceived physical weakness. I see how this approaches POV (refuting a pro-MT source), but I think it's okay - please leave a note if you think there's a problem. Flatscan 04:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rename to Powell Library Incident

[edit] Officer History

There's a quote under "Incident" about one of the officers being fired from a previous position. It should probably be removed for several reasons: 1) some sites are now claiming it's incorrect info (see the "Update"), 2) the reasons he left/quit/got fired were not due to misconduct, and 3) it sounds like more of an abusive ad hominem than anything to do with this case. e.g., the writer supposes that if the officer made a mistake in the past, he must have made a mistake here as well.

Anyway, might need more study. I think a lot of writers (including news reporters) are jumping into this without getting all their facts straight, which is exactly what set off the "paralysis" / "drive stun" confusion. --TheCynic 05:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree. According to the page, "Prior to joining the UCPD in the late 1980s, Duren was fired from the Long Beach Police Department." Why was he fired? For abuse of power, as the page suggests, or did he resign? And according the site presented by TheCynic, Duren never worked at the LBPD. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 05:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Until a reputable news organ confirms or refutes this, it should leave the article. Ford MF 05:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

That blogging.la page has some apparent problems as a source. It says that the LBPD says he didn't work there, but then the (unidentified) LBPD source goes on to offer a summary of Duren's career -- a summary that begins with an opening quotation mark, but never has a closing quotation mark, leaving it up to the reader to try to guess where the quotation ends. If Duren never worked there, why does the LBPD source have so much information about his career? On balance, it's hard for me to see the blogging.la page as a more-authoritative source than the LA Times article, which stated that Duren had been fired from the LBPD. -- John Callender 08:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

blogging.la probably isn't a better source, but LA Times never mentioned why he was "fired". If he was fired for showing up to work late too often, then it's not exactly relevant. In a way, the LA Times is not overly credulous either -- they're selling subscriptions and if leaving out a few key facts pumps up the story and gets more people to subscribe then that's a victory for them.--70.144.64.30 22:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

While agreeing that it would be nice if we had more detail available as to the cause of the firing, or even just to confirm that it took place, I don't think it's irrelevant. Or at last, it's as relevant as the citation that he was Officer of the Year at UCLA PD in 2001, that he is a former Marine, or that he's been at UCLA PD for 18 years. This is all obviously about trying to establish what kind of police officer he is, which has a bearing on how he might have behaved during this incident. All those pro-Duren pieces of information I mentioned above were disseminated by the UCLA PD spokesperson specifically to help craft a certain public perception on that point. In light of the article's reporting those things, I think neutrality requires that it also report information (like his firing from LBPD) that paints him in a less-favorable light. -- John Callender 23:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the officer(s) who took part in the incident, and all related info should go into a separate paragraph and under Incident should only be a brief description of what actually happened for those intrested in that. The information on Duren and the others will grow in size as time passes anyway. Geza 06:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I removed mention of the Iranian Prime Minister's comment

I really don't think the comment is notable enough, considering that Tabatabainejad was born and raised in Los Angeles, and also considering that it was the only other comment mentioned. I consider it equivalent to including two statements in response to the beating of a black man by police: one from the LAPD and the other from the President of the Congo.

If anybody objects to the removal of this statement I'd be more than happy to discuss it here. =) —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 23:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I kind of agree in that it's not particularly relevant, given that the comment had no groundbreaking latitude or impact, but I can see the merits of its inclusion simply on the basis of demonstrating what a far-reaching incident this has become. I wouldn't mind reducing it to an unquoted, passing mention such as "This story has received extensive coverage in major American media and was even commented upon by the Iranian government." Dylan 00:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Completely disagree and I have re-added it for the following reasons:

• The comment by the Iranian, ahem, Foreign Ministry speaks directly to this event. How many incidents of alleged police misconduct in the US can you tie to a denouncement by a foreign gov't?
• This demonstrates the far reaching news aspect of the event.
• The victim was of Persian/Iranian extraction.

• Furthermore on this point: I find the comparison to an African-American/President of Congo to be not only bad, but almost insulting. Virtually all (99%) of Persian/Iranians in the US are 1st/2nd generation, so the connection to the mother country is far, far more substantial than the long and well-documented history of African-Americans in the United States. To draw such a comparison further demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of Iranian-Americans, their history and culture.

In consideration of the above, simply casting that all aside because the kid was born in the US does not make sense. --Bobak 00:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

My viewpoint would be the same if a Mexican were the victim of police brutality and the LAPD and Vicente Fox commented. Forgive the previous poor example, but intuitively for me that connection is just not strong enough to justify inclusion. In both of these cases it would seem to me that a completely uninvolved party were chiming in on the situation from afar, with no direct connection to the events. I apologize if you find this reasoning offensive, but that's quite honestly how I see it. No disrespect or derision intended to anybody or to their connections to their heritage. —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 02:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think we all know it's just hollow posturing by the Iranian government. It's in their interest to portray this as "American vs Iranian" when race had nothing to do with it and indeed, the ethnic makeup of the officers seemed reasonably diverse. If anything, it just makes the Iranian government look like posers, so I say leave it in. :-p --70.144.64.30 21:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

My apologies for insulting anybody. I didn't think there'd be such an outcry at its removal. I have no problem with it being re-added, which is why I went to the trouble to explain my reasoning on the talk page here. —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 02:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the deletion. That it was commented on by the Iranian government is pertinent in demonstrating the reach of this incident, but the content is absolutely irrelevant. This is the Iranian government we're talking about. They would issue nothing less than a disparaging, sensationalist comment about the US and fifty years from now, if somebody stumbles across this article, the context of the comment would likely be lost. --Spencer 07:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the restoration. Exploding Boy 03:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe that that the Iranian Prime Minister's comment should at least be mentioned...since he is a rather significant figure. The prime minister is probably trying to incite a "American vs Iranian" (as noted above), but ethnicity is involved since Tabatabainejad claimed racial profiling. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 05:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Just want to clairfy: this was not a statement by the Prime Minister. It was by a spokesman of the Foreign Ministry. Big ol' difference. Dylan 15:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

In any case, it's been reinserted and I agree it should remain (I didn't re-add it). It's fairly rare for a foreign country to make a comment about what's basically a domestic issue and since it has happened, that's noteable enough in itself to mention whatever the reasons may be for the foreign country to involve itself Nil Einne 21:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Details on the tasering...

Sources seem to conflict on their account of the incident. I'm hearing consistently that he was tasered five times. How many of these times was he "in police custody", i.e. handcuffed? Does anybody know? —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 23:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It's possible to make a count as to the total number of taserings from the YouTube video, if you're willing to guess on the basis of Tabatabainejad's sudden screaming for a few of them (which I think is probably a reasonably accurate basis for guessing). You can see him in handcuffs at one point, and can probably safely assume he's handcuffed continually from that point forward. I just watched it again, and it looks (and sounds) like he's tasered three times while he's upstairs. I can't see if he's handcuffed at the time of the first tasering, but it looks like he's been cuffed from shortly after that point forward, so he would have been cuffed at least for the second and third taserings upstairs. You can pretty clearly see that he's already handcuffed after the second tasering, though again, I suspect he was already in cuffs when that second tasering happened.

Once they take him downstairs it gets harder to tell; it's louder, and the view isn't very clear, there's some additional yelling going on from onlookers, and maybe by that point Tabatabainejad was yelling regardless of whether he was being tasered or not. But it sounds to me like there were at least another two, and maybe three, taserings downstairs before they carried him outside. (Granted, this is all original research, and hence not wikipedia-citable.) But the Nov 21 LA Times article cites Tabatabainejad's former lawyer, Stephen Yagman, as having said Tabatabainejad was tasered five times. Presumably that's the source of the media reports saying that. --John Callender 02:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you mark the time when you see that he's been handcuffed? I think timestamps are very useful when directing viewers. Any opinions on adding a partial transcript and/or timeline to the Talk or main article? Flatscan 02:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Just watched it again. Here are some times of the things I'm talking about:

• 00:01 - T: Don't touch me!
• 00:30 - First tasering
• 00:42 - T: I have a medical condition
• 01:12 - Looks like Duren is cuffing him near the doorway
• 01:46 - Second tasering
• 02:55 - T: Am I the only martyr here?
• 03:14 - Third tasering
• 03:54 - Fourth tasering?
• 04:15 - Fifth tasering?
• 04:34 - Sixth tasering?
• 04:49 - Seventh tasering?
• 06:19 - T. carried out of the building

I'm doubtful that each of the "taserings" at 03:54, 04:15, 04:34, and 04:39 actually all represent taserings. Those are just the points where Tabatabainejad screams loudly, in a manner consistent with what he did earlier when he got tasered. My guess is that there were two taserings total during those four screams, which would bring the total to the five mentioned by Yagman. --John Callender 16:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Five times is the total count given by Yagman (MT's lawyer) in this LA Times article (explicit, but not a direct quote). Due to the view of the action being frequently obscured in the video, it may be impossible to determine an exact count post-restraints from the video alone. Is there a detailed transcript of the video available anywhere? I've seen one mentioned, but was unable to find the actual document. Flatscan 02:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Duren on "active duty"

Currently in the article:

Following the Tasering incident, Duren was not suspended, and returned to active duty.

Wouldn't that mean that he just never left active duty? The way it's written with the word "returned" suggested that he was removed briefly, but that's self-contradictory. Can someone clairfy? Dylan 19:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Returned to work the next day? — Omegatron 04:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baha'i?

The article's reference is this article, which doesn't actually state that he's a Baha'i. Cuñado - Talk 01:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice catch -- thanks -- I fixed it. Dylan 02:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Huh. That was my edit, and I could have sworn the linked-to Daily Bruin article included a mention of his being a Baha'i. But it clearly doesn't now, so either I screwed up, or they modified the article since I created the link. Probably the former. Thanks. -- John Callender 18:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I heard a rumor that Mostafa is not officially a Baha'i, but he was sort of investigating and attending meetings at the Baha'i campus club at UCLA. Thanks for fixing the link. Cuñado - Talk 19:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Mostafa Tabatabainejad.JPG

I have uploaded an enhanced version of this image. If there are any problems I can replace the original but it looks better, at least to me! BlueValour 02:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Transcription of Video

Is including brief transcriptions in the article acceptable (i.e. not original research, not copyrighted, not overly detailed)? Please see Hostile bystander? for an example. Flatscan 21:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I plan to add a partial transcript with periodic timestamps (all my own work) to this section of the Talk. It notes unintelligible and inaudible sections as well as "best guesses" enclosed in brackets. I believe it satisfies WP:NOR and WP:V because it is a direct transcription of a widely-available video. I will wait a few days to receive feedback here. Comments and formatting hints (many short lines - I'm considering multiple columns) are appreciated. Flatscan 05:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Summary: Student versus Intruder

This topic concerns the phrase "in case he was not a student but an intruder" added by Anthony Appleyard. A discussion on a similar phrase describing this incident is in Talk:Electroshock gun. A similar edit was reverted by Jumping cheese with the comment "rv awkward edits." My objections are as follows:

• It's still awkward - the sentence is just too long.
• The phrase is overly specific considering these general statements from UCLA officials: "because of the safety of the students" (UCPD Assistant Chief of Police Jeff Young) and "for the protection of our students" (Interim Chancellor Norman Abrams).
• Anthony Appleyard has not demonstrated that this phrase applies to this incident or to UCLA policy in general.

Flatscan 02:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I support its removal. Dylan 02:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Separate Officers section?

I have been planning to move the information on Duren (and the brief mention of the other officers) from Incident to a new Officers section placed between Student and Incident. My primary purpose is to reduce on the information in Incident in preparation for adding new information (look for my comments on this Talk page for examples). However, while I think that the information on Duren is balanced, moving it before the more complete summary of the incident may be prejudicial to readers.

An alternative would be to move Student into Incident below the initial summary and using subsections to manage the organization. I'm not sure how well this would be received. Flatscan 19:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 4 Vids in LA that week, not 3

Not going to bother with edit but this may be worth referencing, on Friday after this incident (three days after) an LA Daily News article reported:

four new videos surfaced online Thursday, showing Los Angeles police clubbing two young people as they videotaped the arrest of a third during a [July 8 Minutemen rally] in Hollywood.

Revolute 05:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Someone edit this please

"On November 17, 2006, 400 protesters,[19] including UCLA faculty and staff, parents, community members, and UCLA students, all of which were unrational emotional unthinking Hippies gathered at Kerckhoff Hall to protest the incident. This was followed by a march to the UCPD police station, where protesters were greeted by locked doors, turned-off lights, and officers dressed in riot gear.[5][20]" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.4.49.121 (talk) 13:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

Well the article wasn't protected AFAIK, so you could have edited it yourself Nil Einne 16:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems that the POV edit in question was removed promptly by this edit. Flatscan 20:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Remember BLP

Since this article is one that understably raises strong emotions in some people, just a friendly reminded of Wikipedia:Biography of living persons. Although this isn't a BLP, the principles apply in reference to all living people in this article, including the police officers involved (and obviously Tabatabainejad as well) Nil Einne 21:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)