disturbing incident at UCLA

In a recent article in the Daily Bruin, UCLA student, Mostafa Tabatabainejad, was repeatedly stunned with a taser (even when he was handcuffed!) after a random ID check found that he did have his student card. When he did not immediately leave the police were called and "Police officers said they determined the use of Tasers was necessary when Tabatabainejad did not do as they asked."

I understand the need to follow the rules, especially, as the article indicated, after 11 for the safety of the students; however, is tasering necessary when he was handcuffed? He doesn't pose a threat when he can't move AND isn't it procedure to check for weapons right after he is handcuffed so they know he isn't dangerous? What if he had a medical condition and the police killed him? Does the punishment fit the crime? I don't think so. Sure, he may have been a problematic patron not having ID, but I am sure the police could have handled it better. Could it have excalated because he was Iranian (which poses other complicated questions)? Who knows, but this is very disturbing. I am in no way proclaiming absolute knowledge of this incident, but what I have read makes me sad.

Video of this incident:


Additional articles:

Cops use stun gun on student who won't show ID

UCLA Community gathers to protest the Taser incident

Student to file suit against UCPD

Beware of easy knee-jerk reactions

sounds like a personal problem to me...

recently i've been gentley urged to go back to school to get my ph.d. i don't know about this...i tried to whole ph.d. program thing and was only accepted into one school (my alma mater). i'm not sure if i should try again. i would love to get my ph.d., but i am not sure about the intense nature of getting a doctorate. and then there is the problem of getting into "the u" (the university of utah, for all those non-utahns).

anyway, that's all. i know, know...poor baby.

letting extreme premies die?

i read this article from reuters and was fascinated. should one go to any length to save a premature baby even if it may cause stress on the child itself and may ultimately end in death or terminal problems? it is a very intriguing read including the response from the religious leaders. what is best for the baby?

tastes like surrender...

oh colbert...

uh, no thanks jesus, we've got enough..thanks though...

in a recent cnn article, the marine's toys for tots rejected 4,000 jesus dolls (retailed at $20 each) by the one2believe company. the reason? the government program doesn't know the religious affliation of the children receiving this toys and--and here's the amusing part--it was said that "kids want a gift for the holiday season that is fun." as a government entity i can understand why those dolls weren't taken, but it is unfortunante that the generousity couldn't have been used...i guess a christian charity might have been a better organization to donate. that being said, who would of thought that jesus would be rejected because, in part, he isn't "fun"?

it's time for a happy dance...

last night was a fantastic night. politics is the only thing more exciting/fascinating than trashy tabloid blogs...seriously. anyway, not only did bill ritter become govenor or colorado, but now the u.s. congress is more balanced. rumsfeld also resigned today so today is shaping up to be just as good. i feel that all is well in the universe...now if only barack obama would run for president...