It seems I have run into some trouble with my latest blog over the various things I had to say about Senator Andrew Peake, but before I can go into “greater” detail about Sen. Peake it has become necessary to clear up this insignificant issue.
The resolution in question is ASUCD resolution #8 of the 2006-2007 school year. It was written byPeake, co-authored by Laabs, and introduced by Peake. The Vice President, Genna Carnes, decided to send the resolution to Ethnic and Cultural Affairs. I thought this was a mistake and that it implied that the UCLA police officers acted in a racist manner which was not the case. Even the independent investigation that was revealed on August 2nd, 2007 confirmed that racial bias was not a factor in the case. So why was it sent to this commission other than to make a statement? It went to the proper commission, that being the External Affairs Commission and then it went to the ASUCD Senate. In both commissions, the ECAC and EAC, I gave reservations concerning the resolutions. These reservations were not implemented but I am not shedding tears over the matter.
The first clause of the resolution states that Mostafa Tabatabainejad was tasered multiple times while non-violently resisting. I will agree that he was tasered multiple times. Some say he was shocked three times and other say it was four of five. The number of times is not overwhelming concerning to me. The part of the resolution I disagree with is that the suspect who I will from now on name “Mr. T” was not a non-violent suspect. He was screaming and yelling the whole time and requested that the other students around him assist him which I consider to be an inciting of the people around him. Non-violence gives the impression that he was some sort of Gandhi or Martin Luther King figure who committed acts of civil disobedience and are then calmly taken away. This guy was an idiot and he was asking for it.
The second clause states that the police used excessive force as if it were fact. You can’t have a resolution calling for an independent investigation and then at the same time make certain conclusions. You can’t conclude the suspect was non-violent and you can’t conclude that the police were excessive until the independent investigation is finished. The UCLA police department’s own investigation in which they hired outside people determined that the TAZER was not inappropriately used. Furthermore the police department dropped the case on the officers.
I also dispute within the second clause that it was the police that disturbed the peaceful environment of the library. Mr. T did by arguing with the security guard and then resisting the police. The police did their jobs and it was Mr. T who should receive the blame for his actions. The second independent investigation that Mr. Peake will use to justify his case also said that Mr. T was partly responsible for the incident and caused himself trouble when he didn’t have to.
In the first Therefore clause the resolution states that it “supports” an independent investigation and does not “call” for an independent investigation. This is one of those clauses where one can basically ride the success of circumstances already happening. If ASUCD were to “call” for an independent investigation they would have been ignored and then there would have been some evidence to suggest that no one cared what ASUCD thought.
In fact if you check any Internet search engine you will not find one news article or website that combines ASUCD with the independent investigation on the UCLA police incident except for ASUCD information material and the California Aggie. The Independent Investigation was jump started on November 19, 2006, fives days after the incident occurred. The ASUCD resolution was passed on December 7th.
The resolution was not really radical in anyway, it didn’t call for an end to TASER weapons nor did it call for the resignation of any one officer. It didn’t obnoxiously call the officers racist like the UCSA did. I hereby call this resolution the “forgotten” one.
I personally appreciate former Sen. Rosas-Romero’s efforts on the subject because they are much more radical and promote ideas that are a lot bolder. The first part of her “petition” is to ban TASER weapons from UC campuses. The alternative to the TASER weapon is a baton. Allow me to describe this weapon. In the old days they would be made out of solid wood and were painted black. Although they could cause high amounts of pain they could break on occasion and were not as effective as they could be. Then a new baton came out which was made out of metal and plastic. They were short but extendable batons where one pushed a button releasing a metal shaft. This was much more painful, sturdy, and more effective. When you have a violent suspect this weapon causes a greater deal of pain and injury then a TASER. Another alternative is tear gas or pepper spray which by far is more painful to the sensitive eyes than a TASER weapon. Without the TASER the police would have had to use physical force to drag the suspect out of the library. The TASER is the safest way for the officer and for the suspect in almost all cases. Those against the TASER are losing the battle of ideals. More cities have TASERS now and whenever there is a complaint against them police departments purchase more developed ones. Normal citizens can now buy TASER weapons. You wouldn’t refuse citizens to buy TASERS for self defense would you?
I also have issues with the third clause which states that UCLA should have had other means to identify the suspect even if he didn’t have his ID card. Fact remains is that he did have his ID card and refused to show it. What was the security guard supposed to do at 11pm at night? Call his friends, use a finger printer machines, how about an eye code? He didn’t have any right being there if he wasn’t a student. Under UCLA policy you have to be a student to be there at the library. This is to protect students from people wandering onto the campus and possible threats. By restricting non-students from facilities it reduces violence and sexual assaults on these campuses, it’s a reasonable policy.
The fourth clause wants an independent review board at all UC police departments. That’s the answer to everything is a police review board. There must always be multiple boards actively attacking and harassing the police. These boards would be for the most part a waste of time and money because except for very rare occurrences there are no complaints.
The fifth clause demands that all charges should be dropped on Mr. T. This has probably already been done not because he is innocent but because the police and the district attorney don’t want to touch him after the controversial incident. Personally, he should be charged if he broke the law regardless of officer conduct.
I don’t like resolutions that already support status quo because then you simply ride the success of systems already in place. I don’t like resolutions that do not have follow up attached or are too obnoxious for a normal official to take seriously. I do not believe in resolutions designed to pander to some base or divide the student community. For the most part I have come to dislike resolutions all together except for the academic ones which are non-partisan, non-controversial, and actually work towards all students’ interests. I tried to pass a resolution on Measure K and it failed miserably but I won anyway. I tried to introduce a resolution on Proposition 83 which was passed by
No comments:
Post a Comment