ASUCD TASER Resolution and Petition

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 2^nd, 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 7^th.

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 California voters overwhelmingly despite the insane opposition that came out of the ACLU.

Sen. Peake Seeks Reelection

It is becoming more apparent that Andrew Peake is running for reelection to the ASUCD Senate in the Fall 2007 Election. It is unusual for a Senator to run for reelection, I cannot recall a time when a Senator successfully ran for reelection. George Ajlouny may have broken some historic ground by running for reelection in the Winter of 2007, one year after he had been elected to the Senate in the Winter of 2006.

Andrew Peake is either a summer advisor or he likes to hang out with new freshmen. In any case he is campaigning among them in order to create higher visibility for himself. Being a summer advisor is an old but effective campaign trick to get freshmen on one’s side for an election. Freshmen don’t forget who their summer advisors are, except for maybe me.

Which begs the question as to whether it is entirely ethical to be campaigning while a summer advisor. I would say that it is as long as it doesn’t interfere with your job. The same goes for being an RA, there are perks for every occupation in society. A cop has a better chance of winning the Police association’s endorsement for Sheriff then someone who isn’t.

But what has Mr. Peake done in Senate that is of considerable significance that he should be allowed a reelection? There is the gender-neutral bathrooms resolution he had passed which pandered to the LGBT base of the LEAD party. Then there was the resolution calling for an independent investigation on a TASERing incident at UCLA. The independent investigation has not formed and nothing happened. Then there was the resolution in support of Sodexho which ultimately proved to be unwise as Sodexho employees decided to declare war on the campus.

I also remember Mr. Peake voting down a carefully crafted resolution authored by Senator Friedman which would allow UC Davis students to visit places like Israel and still get university credit. Then Mr. Peake voted down a small spending bill of $180 towards the Hillel House retreat, a bill also authored by Senator Friedman. Suffice to say Mr. Peake’s voting record is not all that friendly towards the political objectives of the vocal Jewish community.

Mr. Peake also made enemies among friends when he vocally slammed the Newman Center Tijuana House spending bill decrying the fact that it was a religious organization asking for funds. Due to Mr. Peake’s antics the meeting lasted over two hours and was finally passed when the Senate unanimously decided to give the Newman Center a grant and a loan. Mr. Peake is such great palls with the Hispanic community during the May 1^st march but couldn’t give the Newman Center a dime to assist poverty stricken Mexican families in Tijuana.

All of these things cause me great frustration but the Aggie also should be blamed for its biased reporting. Every time there is an incident concerning a conservative it’s Mr. Peake with a solution or a comment. He commented about me several times even when he was not directly involved and he had loads of fun with Pete Markevich who was involved in the DCR demonstration on May 1^st. According to the Aggie, Peake is a saint who also happened to promote civil disobedience and Markevich is the lowest of the lows for participating in a street theater that didn’t even get started.

But once school starts up again in September the Aggie will be recharged and ready to go. With Peake announcing his intentions to run now it provides some very interesting opportunities. As such I have developed a game plan as to how to move in this election game. By the time the ASUCD elections have started up I will be in a much greater position to influence the game. The students need to know about Mr. Peake and I am all too delighted to be their teacher.