Talk:UCLA Taser incident/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Permanent link to original page

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 Officers section 18 4 Vids in LA that week, not 3 19 Someone edit this please 20 Remember BLP 21 Powell Library itself 22 Tabatabainejad's bipolar disorder 23 UCSA "Police Brutality Resolution" 24 Rationale for tazering: Resisting Arrest 25 Taser 26 This is a gun without bullets 27 Discussion of the incident 28 Independent Investigation 29 Number of stuns 30 Rediculious 31 Bruin Card 32 Racial Profiling

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 —Preceding unsigned comment 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. —Preceding unsigned comment 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)

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)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment 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)

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)

For future reference, Laila Gordy cannot be the male student discussed here. According to the Daily Bruin article in which she is quoted, Laila Gordy is female. Flatscan 02:31, 22 December 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.
O: [I said, get back a little.]
[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)

On pages 39-40 (43-44 in file), the independent report mentions the student in the white t-shirt. This solves problems with OR. The exact language makes it somewhat difficult to describe concisely while remaining NPOV. Flatscan 15:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

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.—Preceding unsigned comment 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)

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)

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)

It seems that the Daily Bruin article has been edited to remove the sentence mentioning the Lancet article and the "physically unable" conclusion. As far as I can tell (from memory and Wiki article history before 20 November 2006), the relevant article is Community responds to Taser use in Powell. Flatscan 00:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The original UCLA article has been edited. One of the earliest Wikipedia version cites the article for the "physically unable" statement. [2] It seems that UCLA finally discovered the bad reporting (though Wikipedia perchance?) and edited the article accordingly. That's not illegal or anything, but it might tarnish the newspapers reputation, since it seems like Daily Bruin is trying to cover up a mistake. Issuing a correction would have been much wiser. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 01:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the Daily Bruin article we discuss here is only source for the claim that Tabatabainejad was stunned for 3-5 seconds each time. I previously labeled the claim with a {{fact}} tag in this edit.

• The Daily Bruin article, Community responds to Taser use in Powell, is the only source that makes this claim. I reviewed most of the referenced articles myself today, and no other editor has replaced the {{fact}} tag.
• As I mention in my edit summary, a 3-5 second stun duration is directly consistent with the duration cited from the Lancet article. As we note here, the Lancet article citation has been removed from the Daily Bruin article.
• As discussed in Details on the tasering..., it is difficult to determine the number of stuns from the video, let alone their durations.

As the {{fact}} tag has been sitting for a month, I will remove the claim now. Flatscan 22:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

While I was reviewing the video for writing a response in Rationale for tazering: Resisting Arrest, I came across a detail that I hadn't noticed before. At 3:15, when Tabatabainejad is stunned for the third time, he jerks and kicks his leg, his foot clearly visible over his head. Although high-kicking may not directly indicate his ability to stand, I think this is strong evidence that Tabatabainejad was not paralyzed at that point in the video. Flatscan 20:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

That could mean that he wasn't paralyzed (as the Drive Stun mode does not cause paralysis) or that he was paralyzed and the shocks caused involuntary muscle contractions. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 22:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Good point, I hadn't thought of that. Flatscan 23:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanxs, but the way Tabatabainejad was flipping around when he was being shocked indicates that he probably wasn't paralyzed. Muscle contraction due to electrical shock causes the person to tense up and twitch at most...not kick and flip around. If you watch actual tazering videos, the person that is tazed instantly falls to the floor after tensing up, no kicking or other voluntary movements. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 01:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Rename to Powell Library Incident

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The Daily Bruin article Student to file suit in Taser incident mentions that Tabatabainejad is Baha'i, it's possible that the other article was referenced by accident. I will add the correct Daily Bruin reference shortly. This cited information has been removed and reverted repeatedly by multiple editors on each side. Both 2-part edits linked below changed Baha'i to Muslim.

• diff 1 diff 2
• diff
• diff
• diff
• diff 1 diff 2
• diff

Flatscan 02:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

"Student" implies that he did nothing wrong and that the criminal charges are unwarranted... this has yet to be seen. It's a given that he was charged criminally, and this article is about the criminal incident. Therefore, instead of using "intruder" (which implies guilt of trespassing, which obviously was not the case) or "student," the correct term should be "suspect." He is currently suspected of committing a crime. Zenmastervex 16:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for posting your justification here. I see your point, but I disagree that "Student" is inappropriate, as Tabatabainejad has been positively identified as an UCLA student. He refused to present ID and was thus not identified during the incident, but the article makes that point clear. "Suspect" is technically correct, but I feel it is POV. Since the section title is emphasized and "Student" has been the title for most of the history of the article, I will revert to the safe version. We can make the change after discussion. Flatscan 17:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see how "student" implies that he did nothing wrong and that criminal charges are unwarranted. If the nature of this specific incident has loaded "student" with connotations that make its use POV, despite the fact that he is, technically, a student, I think a similar (and stronger) case can be made in the other direction about "suspect". --John Callender 19:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

As far as POV, the change to "suspect" actually makes the article more neutral. Currently, I believe the article takes the tone that "This is clear cut police brutality, they tazed a harmless student for no good reason." Allow me to try to explain my reasoning: When a person first reads the article, they are naturally going to see a "student" involved in a situation where the police are being accused of brutality. Though it's easy for people to say, "Yes, the police are guilty," we must treat them as innocent until proven otherwise."Suspect" does not imply guilt, either, and yet it clarifies that the person is merely "suspected" of a crime, not that he or she has been proven guilty. After the criminal case has been completed, there should be an addition stating thus, but until then, it's our responsibility to be neutral about this incident (whether or not you agree with what happened). Furthermore, the article should be about the entirety of the incident, not just about the police brutality. The entirety of the incident includes an actual crime, and since there is a crime, there has to be a suspect. Labeling the suspect as anything other than a suspect demeans the severity of what he did. Zenmastervex 00:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

One last thing I wanted to include in my above edit, but forgot... Here is an example of what I'm talking about: In the wikipedia entry Virginia Tech Massacre, in the section regarding the shooter, the title of the section is "Perpetrator." However, there is verifiable proof that Seung-Hui Cho was a student, correct? The wiki entry even includes that information. However, the article is about a crime and the aftermath. Even though Mr. Tabatabainejad is indeed a student, just like Cho, this article is about a crime and the aftermath, just like the VT article. Though the VT Massacre was obviously more severe a crime than the UCLA incident here, it still shows that "Suspect" should be used to stay uniform with an article regarding another crime. Furthermore, "student" as a heading could refer to any of several people at the scene... Mr. Tabatabainejad, any of the students involved in the crowd, the person taking the video tape... But, there is only one "suspect" in this incident. However, if you're still not convinced, then I want to propose another label: Defendant. Defendant instead of student still implies that there was a crime that he was suspected of, but maybe it sounds more on track with a neutral POV. Thoughts? Zenmastervex 01:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I think any attempt to portray this as a parallel incident to the Virginia Tech shootings, and to treat Tabatabainejad in a way that aligns him with Cho, is going to raise significant POV issues. What specific cases in the article call for describing him as a "student" or "suspect" (or defendent, or whatever)? Can we just use "person" or "individual", or refer to him by name? --John Callender 01:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

John, the only edit I propose is that we change the title of section 1.1 from "Student" to either "Suspect" or "Defendant." I'm really starting to prefer the term defendant, too. It's exactly what he is currently called in the legal system. Everything else should stay the same, and we should refer to him by name, and the details for 1.1 should clearly state that he is a student, but the title of the section is my concern. Zenmastervex 04:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought up a POV spectrum of nouns to describe Tabatabainejad: Victim / Student / Suspect/Defendant / Instigator. I think either Student or Suspect/Defendant is technically appropriate. Honestly, my main concern is that the heading is very obvious (I noticed the change while reviewing the text, not with a diff) and "Suspect" will highlight perceived bias for relatively neutral readers and attract aggressive editors and/or vandals. Flatscan 02:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Hm. What if we just combine the two current subsections of "Student" and "Officers" under a single heading of "Participants"? Then we wouldn't have to pick a one-word label for Tabatabainejad that one group or another is going to view as POV. --John Callender 04:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I like this solution for solving the issue at hand, but I like the current organization as-is. Flatscan 02:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

I made an edit a few days ago using the second approach (Student and Officers inside Incident) - it seems to have been accepted. Flatscan 02:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The two articles (both referenced in the Wikipedia article) describing the identified officers disagree on their arrival times and total count:

• "Duren arrived on the scene with Officers Alexis Bickamong, Kevin Kilgore and Andrew Ikeda, and the sergeant on duty was Philip Baguiao, said Nancy Greenstein, UCPD director of police community services." Officer named in Taser incident, Daily Bruin.

• "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." Officer in Taser case identified, LA Times.

The Wikipedia article includes the information that does not conflict. Flatscan 02:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Powell Library itself

It is notable how many have weighed in on the incident and how much information there is, compared to the actual Powell Library article.

It would be worth mentioning that over the years Powell Library has been a public space. The University has tried to maintain a safe environment for students while still allowing access. Their efforts have met with mixed reactions. For example, In the 1980s the Powell basement men's lavatories were the subject of controversy because it was an LA 'cruising' spot and there were sexual liaisons occurring in the stalls. The administration removed the bathroom stall doors as an immediate response. Then the administration relented and put half sized doors.

There have been assaults in the book stacks and the campus at large is very attractive for predatory types. The UCPD historically have found themselves treading a fine line between maintaining civility and becoming national news. Certainly I hope some Wikipedia users can cite some more information in this regard and state why, in fact, Powell Library needs security in the first place to put this incident in context. Group29 19:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Tabatabainejad's bipolar disorder

I'm considering adding this to the article.

• Wikipedia:Libel does not apply as it is disclosed in Tabatabainejad's lawsuit filing.
• This could be the "medical condition" that he mentions in the video. The two articles referenced regarding the lawsuit state that Tabatabainejad had mentioned his specific disorder to the officers.
• I'm not sure where to put it - it might not be relevant to the Student section.
• I have concerns that including this may be POV if done improperly.

Flatscan 21:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I finally added this to the Lawsuit section. I noticed that the LA Times articles are no longer freely available while doing a different edit, so I thought I needed to do this while there was a source (Daily Bruin) still available. Flatscan 17:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

UCSA "Police Brutality Resolution"

Original section title: Community response: UCSA "Police Brutality Resolution" and Daily Bruin editorial

This is in response to this edit by 24.116.16.95 with the comment (→Community response - I have deleted the final sentence in the section describing an editorial. Editorial information is, at best, irrelevant, and in the case of this editorial, inflammatory.) Once I finish writing this justification, I will rv most of the deletion, leaving out "ridiculous requests".

• The Daily Bruin editorial is the source of the resolution's release date - even if its sentence in the text is struck, its ref should stand.
• The editorial is an unsigned editorial which "represent[s] a majority opinion of the Daily Bruin Editorial Board." Any POV expressed in the editorial should be weighed against POV from other Daily Bruin articles.
• The resolution contains several factual inaccuracies. A citation is necessary, because it would be OR without one. There are less judgmental phrasings, but "full of inaccuracies" is not unacceptable POV.

Flatscan 08:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The "full of inaccuracies" phrase is inappropriate to include in this article. The reason is that this is a secondary "response" to a primary "response," and a disputed POV from Daily Bruin. In addition, the choice of using that phrase seems arbitrary. Why "full of inaccuracies" and not other phrases from the op-ed? It's better to simply describe the entire thing as "criticism" and let the reader investigate further.

We cannot go down an infinite back-and-forth on this issue. The section is titled community response and it should only contain that. Not "reaction to community response." There have been numerous statements and reactions from the University and other individuals describing various statements in value terms. UCSA, for example, wrote an official letter to the Daily Bruin disputing their charges, except for the single misspelling of "Tabatabainejad". Other community members have defended the University in direct response to statements made by newspapers, NIAC and student groups. All these are documented and can be included which would easily make the "response" section of the article much bigger than the main section. These are interesting, but cannot possibly belong in an entry describing the event. The initial "response" belongs in the "response" section, no problem there. But reactions to that response are not appropriate. User Flatscan has done most of the edits in this article and seems to be very familiar with Wikipedia. I'm not sure why he is reversing edits on this issue which someone else had also made before me. When I did the previous edits, I struggled with this issue myself, thinking that while it is a secondary response, perhaps it deserves a mention. But to use specific words like "full of inaccuracies" is simply to invite other value judgments made on these responses (of which there are plenty). So I request that the particular phrase "full of inaccuracies" be removed, otherwise it will justify many other responses-to-responses ad-infinitum. Thanks. --69.226.234.111 20:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for coming here to discuss. I agree that endlessly chaining response after response is not appropriate. My intent in including the editorial is to point out the factual inaccuracies in the resolution (itself a fact, if it is true, more below), which we cannot include without a source. I'd be fine with replacing the entire Daily Bruin sentence in favor of something like "The UCLA section of the resolution contains a number of factual inaccuracies.[Daily Bruin ref]" By choosing a factual statement, we avoid POV bias, although the Daily Bruin is typically pro-student in the articles cited.

Can you provide a link to the UCSA's official letter responding to the Daily Bruin? If the inaccuracies charged by the Daily Bruin are in fact not inaccurate, then it would be clearly appropriate to strike the sentence entirely. If neither is clearly right (and the other wrong), more discussion would be in order.

Also, I'm interested in reading those other responses to responses you've mentioned, if you have links. Thanks. Flatscan 23:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I had seen a letter to the Daily Bruin drafted by one of the three authors of the resolution whereby the "factual errors" are disputed. I will try to find it. But my point is not so much the "errors", there may in fact be some errors (like the misspelling), as seen by the Daily Bruin, but that the Bruin editorial is not a "community response" to the incident. There were plenty of other pieces in the Daily Bruin addressing the incident, but this one is addressing a UCSA resolution. It is a reaction to a community response. The Daily Bruin is normally pro-student, but in this case, they felt the UCLA students were pre-empted by UCSA.

If we were to make another page just on the UCSA resolution, than the "factual" issues in it would be discussed. But the "facts" we should be interested in, in this case, is about the incident and the community response. As for the other pieces, I've seen many in Iranian.com which published editorials both pro and anti the NIAC position. Under these standards, those will have to be included as well.

--69.226.234.111 02:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Do you mind if I try to contact some of the editors previously active on this article? They may help our discussion.

I think we agree that the USCA resolution should definitely be included as a community response. I feel that it is also appropriate to state that the resolution has multiple factual errors/inaccuracies in its UCLA portion. This is a statement of fact that has a verifiable source, the Daily Bruin editorial. Assuming the statement is correct, it is irrelevant that the source is from the Daily Bruin or is an editorial. As an unsigned editorial, it represents a majority opinion of the Editorial Board and should be (in my opinion, I don't know of a guideline) considered as reliable as a Daily Bruin article, since it has the same editorial oversight. Flatscan 03:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This is in response to these edits by 69.226.234.111. Re: "responses to responses" in edit summary, I cover why the quotation and its source are appropriate above. I agree that resolution regards incidents at both UC Santa Cruz and UCLA, and that the Daily Bruin criticisms are focused on the UCLA portion.

Regarding the precise dates: Resolution November 2006 meeting agenda Meeting minutes 1 Meeting minutes 2

• November 17 is the date on the resolution itself. As there are edits and discussion mentioned in the minutes files, this should be considered the initial draft date only.
• According to the meeting agenda, the November 2006 meeting takes place on November 17-18. The second minutes file is dated November 18, 2006, and the first file can be assumed to be from November 17.
• Specific grammatical amendments listed in the second minutes file are present in the final, released version of the resolution. (Some of the language does not match exactly, e.g. "bleeding" versus "bloodied".)
• From the second minutes file: "Motion ... to approve as amended.... Motion passes 11-1-2." The passage date is November 18.

I'm not sure if it's appropriate to cite the minutes directly for the passage date, but I couldn't find another appropriate source. Flatscan 19:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Rationale for tazering: Resisting Arrest

One of the main things not yet discussed in the article is how difficult it would be to stand up after being handcuffed and tazered. This is an important issue, since it seems the second to fifth tazerings occured because the student refused to stand up after being repeatedly told to do so (ie. resisting arrest). But let's forget about the tazering for a moment. Try this simple experiment yourself. Try tying your hands behind your back, and then lie down flat on your stomach. Now try standing up. It's very difficult. It's very hard even to get to a sitting position. Even rolling over takes a considerable effort. You obviously need to use your hands to stand up. Therefore I think this fact should be mentioned in the article as it is relevant in considering whether or not the tazering was justified. 218.186.9.5Ronny

Thanks for discussing your suggested change here first. I would not oppose the addition if these 2 concerns are addressed: your experiment is OR without a citable source and it must be shown to be relevant to this incident.

• I think it's likely that your experiment or some variant is described in a self-defense guide somewhere online, but that may not be considered a reliable source. I tried it myself (holding my wrists together, not tying them) and found it not very difficult. Rolling over to my back was more difficult than I had expected, but sitting up from there was very easy. Sitting → kneeling put some strain on my knees, but kneeling → standing is obvious and easy. Using my hands made certain steps easier, but I kept my wrists together behind my back. My floor is carpeted, so I may have been able to be more aggressive without penalty.
• As far as I know, Tabatabainejad is never shown or described lying prone while restrained. Whenever he is visible in the video (1:47, 2:25-3:10, 5:22 until end), his upper body is more or less upright, supported by officers holding his arm/shoulders. It's not clear whether he is kneeling or his legs are dragging limp.

Flatscan 20:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

As a police officer myself, I want to add something regarding him resisting from a professional point of view. After he was arrested, he was being escorted out of the building by the police officers. However, instead of complying, he was resisting arrest by not supporting his own body weight

"After he was arrested"..."he was resisting arrest". Um, how can you resist arrest AFTER you have ALREADY been arrested?? 12.110.196.19 01:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

(even though he was picked up by the police officers, as shown multiple times in the video), he refused to obey lawful orders after he was arrested, and he was being very beligerant and abusive toward the officers after being arrested. All of these thing combined (the "dead weight" tactic, in particular) justifies the usage of a tazer to gain compliance.

So, you're a cop, and to you 'go limp' = '50,000 volts thru the nipples'?? Please tell me where you live, so I'll know where not to go on vacation.12.110.196.19 01:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Ever since the introduction of the tazer, it has gained popularity with law enforcement because a) it's easy to use, b) the effects are not long lasting, and c) it's triggers an instinctual reaction in the human mind. What would you rather they do?

1) Allow him to walk out of the building, as he was ALREADY DOING. There. Problem (unauthorized person in building) solved (no more unauthorized person in building).

2) If they simply HAVE to arrest him, and he goes limp, then just carry him. Or even drag him. There is NO need for tasing, pepper-spraying, beating, punching, kicking, or anything else.12.110.196.19 01:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

If they use their batons on the suspect, there could be more permanent damage, such as nerve and bone injuries. If they use OC spray (pepper spray) on the suspect, then he's more likely to have an allergic reaction and the effects could last up to 2 hours, which is much more cruel than 5 second of tazer. Anyway, just a couple thoughts from someone with relevant experience to maybe get the POV debate on the right track. I know this is a controversial topic, but in the eyes of the law it was completely justified. Zenmastervex 08:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the officers should have just carried him out, rather than resorting to what in effect sets them on the slippery slope of employing torture to modify the behavior of someone who does not constitute an immediate threat to himself or others. That's the main reason I think the student protest after the event, in which students carried signs reading, "I'm a student. Don't Taser me." were exactly the wrong approach. They should instead have gone into Powell, sat down, and displayed signs reading, "I'm a student, but as a protest against the mistreatment of my fellow student, I will not willingly show you my ID or leave the library under my own power. You can carry me out, and I won't resist, but will resist to the limits of my ability any attempt to gain my compliance through torture." Then run the cellphone cameras and let the officers start zapping the cattle with their cattle prods. Film at 11:00...

Though granted, that's a much easier position to advocate from the comfort of my keyboard than to actually put into practice. :-) --John Callender 19:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

John, I understand the need for people to be able to express themself and their outrage for the perceived mistreatment of others, but what you're advocating (the non-violent protest of an incident by creating an parallel situation) will only cause public perception of your side to lower, perhaps to unacceptable levels. Quite frankly, protesters need the public on their side, otherwise they're branded as radicals and extremists. By sitting down in Powell and frankly stating that you're not going to show ID as required by policy, you would be circumventing the intent of the policy to begin with, thus creating a less secure, less safe environment. The policy to show ID during specific hours exists for a reason. Without having any direct knowledge of why the policy was implemented, I can only theorise that it is because unwanted people who are not students at UC were entering the building, possibly to cause havoc or create crimes. Since the policy actually gives an advantage to the students of UC, why would they want to purposely violate it? It seems completely illogical to destroy something that protects you. If something happened in Powell, say a rape, mugging, or theft of UC equipment/computers, the immediate response from the public would be, "Why were non-students allowed inside the school building." If you want to protest, why don't you do it in a way that doesn't paint all those involved as radicals? Zenmastervex 04:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. Cops shouldn't be punishing people. That's not their job. We have courts for that. Putting them in the position of dishing out what amounts to torture when a less-problematic solution (carrying the nonviolent protester away) is available is ultimately putting them on a path to being enforcers for a police state. I'd prefer not to live in such a country, and the people who wrote the U.S. Constitution felt the same way. --John Callender 04:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

No, John, you're missing the point. Use of a tazer (or any other tool a police officer carries, whether it's a baton, OC spray, or firearm) on a person isn't "punishment" for a crime. It's about absolute control of a situation, and it's about the putting into practice the theory of arrest. Fact: Some people, when placed under arrest, will not go voluntarily. Therefore, we have means of subject control. Find a way to stop people from resisting a lawful arrest, and I'll support your notion that we remove tazers from society. Until then, it's the current best solution to controlling criminals. Zenmastervex 03:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm familiar with the cop mentality. I worked for the UCPD at UCLA (as a student CSO, not as a police officer) for several years, and before that as a dispatcher with the UC Irvine PD. So I'm not surprised by the attitude you express, and on a certain level I sympathize with your position, and think I understand why you see the situation that way. I also think that giving a police officer the explicit authority to use a taser in drive-stun mode as a pain compliance technique for dealing with a passive resister (or, while we're at it, to swab pepper oil in passive resisters' eyes, or any number of other pain compliance techniques) is a mistake. There are other issues at stake here than just the cop's normal desire to have as large an arsenal and as unfettered access to it as possible. There are larger societal costs and benefits that need to be considered.

In the more narrow sense, yes, as a cop you need to be able to control the situation, and you need access to an appropriate level of force to accomplish that. You also need the judgment to choose that level of force quickly and correctly in a scary, chaotic situation. In hindsight, I think the appropriate level of force in this case was to pick the guy up and carry him out. If you as a cop think that's beneath your dignity, then you probably shouldn't be a cop. And as a practical matter, I think Officer Duren made a mistake in going to the taser. That situation became less controlled, not more controlled, as a result of his decision to do so. Watch the video. Pre-taser, the cops were dealing with one obnoxious loudmouth, cuffed and on the ground. By the time Duren got done zapping him, they had created something verging on an angry mob, with a dramatically increased risk that they, or someone else, would be harmed as a result. Duren's decision also played a key role in the creation of a video that has been seen more than 600,000 times (and counting), leading large numbers of people to conclude that the UCPD, or cops generally, are brutal thugs who can't be trusted. That's a pretty high price to pay for the convenience of not having to drag him outside the building (which they pretty much ended up having to do anyway). --John Callender 04:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you completely that it paints the police in a negative light. I also want to bring up that we don't know what happened prior to the video being shot. There could have been hundreds of things happen that would leave a police officer to feel threatened, which is yet another step the subject is making toward the need for less-lethal tool's deployment. Needless to say, though, this will be an interesting read when the lawsuit if finalized. Hey, quick question... is the criminal portion of the case over with? If so, what was the verdict? That could be important to the article. Zenmastervex 07:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

"There could have been hundreds of things happen that would leave a police officer to feel threatened".... none of which were still going on during the video. I don't think it's fair to say 'Well, something might have happened in the past..." as a justification for CURRENT behaviour. Unfortunately, I see more and more of that thinking all the time. "he resisted at the beginning, so that justifies [act of brutality done several minutes later, after suspect hase ceased to resist]". Um, no. No, it doesn't. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.110.196.19 (talk) 21:42:28, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

Taser

I watched the video!! it was brutal!! On an objective note I belive the student was unable to move and the police officers were refusing to listen and kept on Tasering him. The sad part is no one was helping him! a couple of students tried, but the rest just kept on looking. It dosent seem like students here have unity! It would have been awesome to see all students jump the UCLA security and beat the crap out of them........ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.215.252.94 (talk • contribs) 09:28, 6 February 2007.

Amusing... Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 00:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess, if you can get past the incorrect use of "objective". And the exclamation points which seem to take away from the somber horror of this whole episode. 140.247.248.204 18:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Awesome to see the security guards beaten up? Consider that they're police officers, they have the power of arrest, they're probably armed... Ya know, for someone who is advocating against police brutality, you're sure promoting "civilian brutality." I'm glad nobody takes your advice, because it would get people killed. Zenmastervex 08:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a gun without bullets

Read this links:

• [3]
• [4]
• [5]

There are lots of persons killed with this weapons (some persons with 23 or 35 years), and It works like a electric chair. Someone want to be tassed?. What is the difference with a gun? --212.183.255.180 20:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

According to the source you provided from Amnesty International, up to 156 deaths in the period of five years can be attributed to Tazers (attributed...not necessarily the cause of death). However, your other sources states that Tazers have been used over 70,000 times as of last year. So in the period of five years, thats 350,000 times. That comes out to 0.045% of dying because a Tazer was involved in the arrest.

Ever hear of the McDonalds Coffee Case? A silly woman mis-handled a cup of coffee, spilling it in her crotch. She sued because the coffee was 'too hot' (even though it wasn't. Long story). Her lawyer was able to show there were 700 other cases of burns (of all degrees) from the coffee. 700. Sounds like a lot, Right? Until you realize that that amounts to one burn for every 24,000,000 cups of coffee sold. That's 0.000000041666 of cups resulting in a burn. A LOT less chance than 0.045% DYING while being shocked with a tser.12.110.196.19 01:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

According to this source based on National Geographic which was based on U.S. government statistics, you have about the same chance from being killed by a Tazer and being killed in a bicycle accident. Unless you are equally against bicycles, I don't see why you should be singling out Tazers as being as deadly as a gun. I'm reverting if I don't receive a response in 24 hours. Thanxs. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 22:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at Talk:Electroshock weapon if you want more info regarding the deadliness of Tazers. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 22:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

People don't die from tazers.

People die due to their brain ceasing to function, usually due to 1)lack of oxygen 2) physical trauma. 1) The heart, which pumps blood thru the body (which carries oxygen to the brain), is triggered by tiny electrical shocks. Zapping someone with a (relatively) huge amount of electricity (like, say... a taser) can disrupt the heart rhythm. Heart no beat right = blood not pumped right = reduced oxygen to brain = possible brain death. 2) People who are tased lose control of their bodies temporarily. Ever see that video pf the cow falling over when it's tased? Since Falls are the #1 cause of accidental death, it's quite possible for a person who is tased to fall and hit their head (on the ground, of nothing else). Physical trauma to the head can lead to brain death.

See? Tasers CAN cause death.12.110.196.19 02:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

People who die from being tazed die from other issues

Wait... "People who DIED FROM BEING TASED" don't die from being tased? That's nonsensical.12.110.196.19 02:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

, such as heart failure caused by either a pre-existing condition or having dangerous narcotics in their body. My advice is to not break the law or fight with the police, and you won't have to be worried about being tazed. Zenmastervex 08:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it is a death penalty without a judgment. And there are lots of innocent people killed by police.--212.183.255.180 11:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Anytime someone dies for whatever reason is a "death penalty without a judgment". Why bag on Tazers in particular? Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 20:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

"Lots" is a subjective term, why don't you come up with something a little more constructive and verifiable. As Jumping Cheese said, death has occurred in 0.045%. That's extremely low, not even enough to warrant concern IMO. Is it more than 1? Absolutely, especially if you consider police-involved vehicle accidents and possible consequences. Is it always the police who are at fault? No way. Yes, it's always sad to hear about it, even though it's a necessary side effect.

What else would you propose? Disband the existence of the police? Total anarchy isn't my idea of a free society. Disarm the police? Take a look at the UK, where only specialized police forces are permitted to carry guns. Violent crime is like a plague there, and police officers are subject to more violent encounters there than in the USA (for example). If you take away guns from the law abiding (including the police), only the criminals will have the guns. The fact is, no one likes the police until they need them. In the incident in question (UCLA), the students in the computer lab didn't feel they needed the police (even though it wasn't their choice). However, let's take the same incident, although instead of "Taser Boy" from UCLA, let's insert "Gun Crazed Maniac" from Virginia Tech. Where are the police now? Oh, right, you disbanded them... and considering the stupid, illogical laws banning law abiding people from carrying guns for their own self defense on a school campus, you just turned the entire computer lab into a barrel filled with fish. Shoot away.

Of course, allowing people to excercise their 2nd Amandment Right would go hand-in-hand with reducing Police power. Take the power out of the hands of the govr, an dput it back inthe hands of the people.

Oh, and nice job the cops did in stopping the VT shooter....12.110.196.19 02:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, take into account the controversy that surrounded Mace/OC/Pepper Spray when it was introduced. The community was up in arms, with rumors running rampant of people dying, from OC overdose to catching on fire after being sprayed near a flame. However, after just a few years of use, the public accepted OC spray as a chemical less lethal weapon. Where would we be without it? Well, if you remove OC spray and tasers, you leave the police with guns and nightsticks/batons... guns have a high chance of causing death, so that's out. Batons are more likely to cause permanent nerve and boen damage, and have been known to cause death if the target is struck in the temple, neck, head, or chest... So that's out too. What else is there? Nothing. So, you would rather limit the police to the choice of using a gun or a baton? Seriously bad idea.

Yeah, because the ONLY thing cops can do is assault people. Is that what you are saying? That it's just a choice between being assaulted with a gun, a nightstick, mace, or a taser, and we should let cops have "less lethal" weapons so we don't risk dying? Where's the NON-violent options? Why can't the cops TALK to people. Unauthorized person in building, cops TALK to him, ask him to leave (which, by all accounts I've heard, he was already doing). Instead, cops go right away to violence.12.110.196.19 02:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

So, let's reintroduce the OC spray and the taser. Standard police grade OC spray is rated on the Scoville Heat Unit scale at 4 to 5.5 million SHU. Habanero peppers are only rated at around 400,000 SHU. Pretty hot, and lasts for up to 2 hours. Will the target live through the experience? Yes, and probably learn something about breaking the law, too. No, on to the taser. I've personally been tased before, and the experience isn't as bad as everyone thinks it is. The urban youth refer to it as the "electric chair," but i assure you it's really just a feeling of helplessness as your muscles tense up. There's very little pain involved. Tasers are pre-programmed to use a 5-second charge with every pull of the trigger, and can be shortened by the operator down to 1 second with little practice. The shocking effects of the taser are immediately over, although the mental repercussion induces the flight mechanism. Afterwards, the pins are removed and the subject goes on his way. Full recovery is between 10 and 30 minutes. So, you have a choice: be shot, be hit with the baton, be sprayed with OC, or be tased... which do you choose?

Zenmastervex 08:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I choose none of the above. I choose my cops to NOT assault me by ANY means. 12.110.196.19 02:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey User:12.110.196.19. Please respond to the comments at the end of each comment, not in the middle of them. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 04:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello, User:12.110.196.19, whoever you are that you feel you need to post anonymously, I will say that a) you're not very credible, hiding behind an IP address, and b) you're very, very rude for inserting your comments into my reply. Don't do it again. Now, I never said "the only thing cops can do is assault" people. It's obvious that you're trying to put words into my mouth, but I think we all see right through that tactic. Anyway, I want you to find me a death certificate that says someone "Died from being tazed." I'll bet your $1000 you can't find one, because tazers don't kill people. Instead, the death arrises from something else, such as heart failure. Of the several people who died after being tazed, 99% of them were strung out on dangerous drugs. Go research this for yourself before you open your trolling mouth. Next, the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with reducing police "power." The second amendment is about not NEEDING the police in every situation. The police did not stop the VT shooter because they didn't know it was going to happen. They're not mind readers, and this is why the average citizens needs to be able to carry their own weapon for self defense no matter where they are, whether it's a school, library, outhouse, or bar. Finally, the cops don't assault people at a whim. The subject of the "assault" chooses to resist arrest. The CRIMINAL in this UC situation CHOSE to resist arrest. He did it to himself. Yeah, you chooose none of the above... well, then don't break the law. If you do, and you're being arrested, don't resist arrest. Sound's like a pretty elementary situation to me. Zenmastervex 03:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

you're not very credible, hiding behind an IP address,

There's the cop attitude- a person is anonymous (because they are posting from work, maybe, instead of their home PC), they MUST be "hiding" their identity. All cops seem to think like that.

you're very, very rude for inserting your comments into my reply. Don't do it again.

Or what? You'll arrest me? Again, that's the cop attitude- don't do something I don't like, or I'll hassle/arrest you.

Now, I never said "the only thing cops can do is assault" people. It's obvious that you're trying to put words into my mouth,

I quote: "Well, if you remove OC spray and tasers, you leave the police with guns and nightsticks/batons".

The ONLY options YOU give the cops are violent options. God forbid the cops TALK to people, or simply grab their arms. No, according to you, the cops are only left with "guns and nightsticks/batons".

Instead, the death arrises from something else, such as heart failure.

Duh. Now, think about it for a second. What causes the heart to beat? Tiny electrical shocks from the brain. Now, what might happen if you put a MASSIVE jolt of electricity thru the heart. Might it possibly, oh, what's the word I'm looking for... fail?

Finally, the cops don't assault people at a whim.

Not true. Seen it happen. So have lots of other people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.110.196.19 (talk) 22:01:12, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of the incident

I put this in a separate section to avoid singling out editors. I've noticed that many of the recent edits have been less related to the content of the article. I'm considering placing the {{notaforum|personal opinions about the incident}} template at the top of this Talk page. Flatscan 20:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a good point. I was thinking about that already, realizing that I'd been making that mistake by digressing into talk about the incident itself, rather than talking about this article. Sorry about that. I'm done, and will do my best not to repeat it. --John Callender 22:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I admit I was duped into a debate by trolls. Back on topic, I think the article would benefit greatly if there was a section detailing the policy to show ID after a specific time, how long the policy had been in effect, and the reasoning for the policy as stated by the administration. As it stands now, the only real reference to the ID policy is "routine check," and another statement from the police chief. I feel more elaboration would benefit the reader greatly. Zenmastervex 07:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The section Powell Library itself contains some history on Powell Library. There are no citable sources for this information, so it cannot be included. I did a quick search for UCLA id policy, but was only able to find the official policy for the UCLA Law Library. Posters on blogs and forums self-representing as current UCLA students or recent graduates claim that the policy has been in effect for years. These sources are unreliable, but they could help in the discovery of an official source. Flatscan 16:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Flatscan, I'll do some looking around and see if I can find a verifiable source that explains the ID policy more in depth. Now, I have something else I want to bring up. In the incident section, we have this line: When, according to Young, Tabatabainejad failed to leave immediately, UCPD officers were called to the scene and eventually used the Taser in its "Drive Stun" capacity. My issue is that this line does not actually portray the verifiable information we have at [6], which is already listed on #5 of the references. The current article fails to show that the CSO and the police officers asked Mr. Tabatabainejad "multiple times" (direct quote from the source) to leave the premises, which he continued to refuse. The current article implies he was asked to leave once, does not state how long "eventually" means (which is important for POV), and was tazed for failure to leave "immediately." He was given multiple chances to leave. Furthermore, the timeline of the reference shows that, in chronoligical order, Mr. Tabatabainejad was asked to leave, then was being escorted out, then he went limp and refused to cooperate, then he started calling for the crowd to join the resistance, and then he was tazed. The current article states, however, that he was asked to leave, then tazed, then started his tirade about the resistance. The fact is, the crowd was already gathering before he was tazed. Remember, the video of the incident doesn't show us anything that happened before it was turned on. Thoughts? Zenmastervex 00:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

One of the difficulties with this article is that the most detailed sources about the incident - the police statement and the student newspaper - are potentially POV and must be balanced against each other. The text introducing Incident glosses over where they disagree, while Video and eyewitness accounts contains a detailed comparison. Putting either version ("asked to leave" or "grabbed his arm") under Incident endorses that source over the other. For a point of detail that is not disputed it would be nice to have a detailed time for how long elapsed between the CSO contacting the UCPD and when the officers arrived.

Regarding the start of the video: I'm reasonably sure that the first stun is applied at 0:30 and that no stuns were applied prior to the start of the video. I don't think that I have a source for this specific fact (I would have put it in the article if I did). I think it's reasoning based on 1) the number of stuns visible/audible in the video versus the publicized count and 2) the students rushing in once the first stun is applied and Tabatabainejad starts screaming. At the start of the video, the other students are aware of some sort of a disturbance: Tabatabainejad is shouting, the video is being recorded, and audio suggests that another student is confronting the officers. I have considered inserting a more detailed evaluation/transcription of the video, but analysis will likely be removed as OR. Flatscan 02:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Independent Investigation

Full report; Daily Bruin articles: [7] [8]

I read through the Factual Findings and skimmed the rest. I think this report is a particularly good source, as it is both comprehensive and unbiased. Flatscan 20:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Any suggestions for citing specific sections or pages from the report? I feel that parenthetical references will clutter the main text and separate ref tags will clutter the References section. The file is 117 pages long. Flatscan 22:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I've decided to place the page numbers in <!-- --> blocks, where they will be readily available for future editing. Note that there is a 4 page offset due to the title page and table of contents. Flatscan 16:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I found this editorial/letter while reviewing the new Daily Bruin articles: Taser report lacking, especially in accountability. I noticed this sentence in particular: "But according to Pesce’s summary, Tabatabainejad never offered anything more than passive resistance, and he only did so after UCPD officers had used a Taser on him." To clarify, the Pesce article and the independent report are clear that although Durden pressed the Taser against Tabatabainejad as they walked, he did not activate it until after Tabatabainejad had gone limp and the officers had given multiple orders/warnings. Flatscan 18:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Number of stuns

Starting page 37 (41 in file), the independent report describes screaming by Tabatabainejad that cannot be explained.

On page 38 (42 in file), there is a paragraph describing the number of stuns according to different sources:

• Tabatabainejad: 4-5
• Durden, initial report: 3, possibly 4
• Various media accounts: 5
• X26 Taser internal log: 3
• Independent investigation: positively identify/confirm 3; cannot rule out more, but no reason to doubt Taser log

I plan to add a sub-section in Incident after Taser "Drive Stun" capacity, move the existing refs for count=5 there, and change all other occurrences to "multiple". Flatscan 17:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I made these changes. I included the information from the independent report by including the entire paragraph in a {{cquote}} block. I removed the footnotes from the two quotations, which are "Officer 2 Supplemental Report, 2." and "Sara Taylor, "Student to file suit in Taser incident," The Daily Bruin, 20 November 2006." The Daily Bruin article has a ref, but I thought it would be confusing to insert into the quotation. Flatscan 19:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I restored the footnotes to the article text in <!-- --> blocks. Flatscan (talk) 20:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Rediculious

What an embarrassing event...when u search ucla on youtube, five of the first 6 results are this incident. anyway, did anything happen to the officer? i think weneedto report onthat Nikkul 07:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Bruin Card

The article refers to UCLA ID cards as both 'bruin card' and 'bruin id cards'. Which one is preferable, or should we switch to student ID card, or university issued ID card, or something more generic for those who aren't framiliar with university life? I recognized what the article was talking about immediatly, (theres a nice parenthesis in the intro statement) and it reminded me of my WatCard (University of Waterloo ID card). If we stick with the specific 'bruin card', we should decide if it's 'bruin card' or 'bruin ID card'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigmacd24 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The Daily Bruin articles call it "BruinCard". Maybe the text in the first section should be revised from "Bruin ID cards" to "BruinCard IDs". Flatscan (talk) 01:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I made this change. Flatscan (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Racial Profiling

The student who initially requested his ID was also a minority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.201.37 (talk) 08:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I was not able to find any mention of this in the independent report, but I think I might have read it elsewhere. Even if we can locate a reliable source, I'm not sure how to work this into the text. Flatscan (talk) 23:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.