Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

One of the reasons I hate college kids...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Marchetti, David, M
    replied
    Originally posted by Black Caesar
    I believe it was a set up as well.

    The kid screams "Am I the only Martyr?" a couple of times. And now (after he dumped his 1st lawyer and decided not to pursue the racial profiling lawsuit) he's suing saying what happened to him is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act lol. Can't decide what kind of "discrimination" he faced lol.
    His lawyers are trying in Federal court that's why, bigger money, should have sued in state court claiming unlawful assault, ect. Lawyer also should have requested a DOJ investigation via the federal police misconduct code. (18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242). "Color of law" simply means that the person doing the act is using power given to him or her by a governmental agency (local, State, or Federal). A law enforcement officer acts "under color of law" even if he or she is exceeding his or her rightful power. The types of law enforcement misconduct covered by these laws include excessive force, sexual assault, intentional false arrests, or the intentional fabrication of evidence resulting in a loss of liberty to another. Enforcement of these provisions does not require that any racial, religious, or other discriminatory motive existed.

    (42 U.S.C. § 14141). The types of conduct covered by this law can include, among other things, excessive force, discriminatory harassment, false arrests, coercive sexual conduct, and unlawful stops, searches or arrests. In order to be covered by this law, the misconduct must constitute a "pattern or practice" -- it may not simply be an isolated incident. The DOJ must be able to show in court that the agency has an unlawful policy or that the incidents constituted a pattern of unlawful conduct. However, unlike the other civil laws discussed below, DOJ does not have to show that discrimination has occurred in order to prove a pattern or practice of misconduct.

    The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 prohibit discrimination against individuals with disabilities on the basis of disability. (42 U.S.C. § 12131, et seq. and 29 U.S.C. § 794). These laws protect all people with disabilities in the United States. An individual is considered to have a "disability" if he or she has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, has a record of such an impairment, or is regarded as having such an impairment.

    The ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in all State and local government programs, services, and activities regardless of whether they receive DOJ financial assistance; it also protects people who are discriminated against because of their association with a person with a disability. Section 504 prohibits discrimination by State and local law enforcement agencies that receive financial assistance from DOJ. Section 504 also prohibits discrimination in programs and activities conducted by Federal agencies, including law enforcement agencies.

    These laws prohibit discriminatory treatment, including misconduct, on the basis of disability in virtually all law enforcement services and activities. These activities include, among others, interrogating witnesses, providing emergency services, enforcing laws, addressing citizen complaints, and arresting, booking, and holding suspects. These laws also prohibit retaliation for filing a complaint with DOJ or participating in the investigation.

    All this kid has to do is prove he falls under the ADA act and he's set and ready to go, meaning if he suffers from any ADA recognized medical problem he was protected by the act. Whatever the out come, do you know the average cost of fighting off a federal lawsuit? - huge bucks......

    Leave a comment:


  • Marchetti, David, M
    replied
    Grins, o.k. you got me, bows his head, I'm guilty, I just love screwing with some of you, laughing. I would tell the cops to knock it off and just cuff the damn kid and take him, or else I would be sending up a sworn incident affidavit to the Chief State's Attorney ( Connecticut's Top Cop ) citing the states assualt charges, excessive use of a tasor, any physical evidence I could gather like that video, witnesses names, and request criminal charges be brought against the police officers. Then I would make sure that kids lawyers get a hard copy of everything, that's what I would do in my role as a state licensed security officer.

    Sec. 53a-61. Assault in the third degree: Class A misdemeanor. (a) A person is guilty of assault in the third degree when: (1) With intent to cause physical injury to another person, he causes such injury to such person or to a third person; or (2) he recklessly causes serious physical injury to another person; or (3) with criminal negligence, he causes physical injury to another person by means of a deadly weapon, a dangerous instrument or an electronic defense weapon. (b) Assault in the third degree is a class A misdemeanor and any person found guilty under subdivision (3) of subsection (a) of this section shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of one year which may not be suspended or reduced. (1969, P.A. 828, S. 62; P.A. 86-287, S. 3; P.A. 92-260, S. 30.)

    Sec. 53a-64. Reckless endangerment in the second degree: Class B misdemeanor. (a) A person is guilty of reckless endangerment in the second degree when he recklessly engages in conduct which creates a risk of physical injury to another person. (b) Reckless endangerment in the second degree is a class B misdemeanor. (1969, P.A. 828, S. 65.)


    Sec. 53a-62. Threatening in the second degree: Class A misdemeanor. (a) A person is guilty of threatening in the second degree when: (1) By physical threat, such person intentionally places or attempts to place another person in fear of imminent serious physical injury, (2) such person threatens to commit any crime of violence with the intent to terrorize another person, or (3) such person threatens to commit such crime of violence in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror. (b) Threatening in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor. (1969, P.A. 828, S. 63; Nov. 15 Sp. Sess. P.A. 01-2, S. 8, 9; P.A. 02-97, S. 16.)

    Sec. 53a-181. Breach of the peace in the second degree: Class B misdemeanor. (a) A person is guilty of breach of the peace in the second degree when, with intent to cause inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, such person: (1) Engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior in a public place; or (2) assaults or strikes another; or (3) threatens to commit any crime against another person or such other person's property; or (4) publicly exhibits, distributes, posts up or advertises any offensive, indecent or abusive matter concerning any person; or (5) in a public place, uses abusive or obscene language or makes an obscene gesture; or (6) creates a public and hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which such person is not licensed or privileged to do. For purposes of this section, "public place" means any area that is used or held out for use by the public whether owned or operated by public or private interests. (b) Breach of the peace in the second degree is a class B misdemeanor. (1969, P.A. 828, S. 183; P.A. 92-260, S. 68; P.A. 98-55; Nov. 15 Sp. Sess. P.A. 01-2, S. 6, 9.)

    Sec. 53a-182. Disorderly conduct: Class C misdemeanor. (a) A person is guilty of disorderly conduct when, with intent to cause inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, such person: (1) Engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior; or (2) by offensive or disorderly conduct, annoys or interferes with another person; or (3) makes unreasonable noise; or (4) without lawful authority, disturbs any lawful assembly or meeting of persons; or (5) obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic; or (6) congregates with other persons in a public place and refuses to comply with a reasonable official request or order to disperse; or (7) commits simple trespass, as provided in section 53a-110a, and observes, in other than a casual or cursory manner, another person (A) without the knowledge or consent of such other person, (B) while such other person is inside a dwelling, as defined in section 53a-100, and not in plain view, and (C) under circumstances where such other person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. (b) Disorderly conduct is a class C misdemeanor. (1969, P.A. 828, S. 184; P.A. 01-83, S. 1.)

    Legally you can not tasor someone several times on the basis they refuse to get up and walk, and that's what they wanted and obviously tasored the kid several times for, sorry in Connecticut that's illegal and amounts to malicious use of force, i.e. assualt, reckless endangerment, and other charges. Any good lawyer would have a field day with this, their actions were excessive in my own opinion. And I bet you the State would seriously look into criminal charges against the Police Officers, their actions we not cool. And yes I would testify to it in court on behalf of the kid, if it was a setup well then the cops took the bait and should have known better, still no excuse for their excessive actions.
    Last edited by Marchetti, David, M; 01-25-2007, 02:45 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • SEO_09
    replied
    Right now I am in college. I am also in law enforcement. All I have to say is that I am sorry for the way the big babies acted towrds the UCLAPD. They could have done some things different, but there was absolutely no complience on the subjects part, so her should be happy that they did'nt have to use the baton or oc on him. By the way College is just High School 2.0, new, but not improved.

    Leave a comment:


  • james2go30
    replied
    Just don't sit right.

    The whole incident just doesn't sit well with me. But if it was a set-up to make some kind of statement or whatever the motive...what a better setting then a college...lot of different activists there some against the same causes...and what a perfect audiance for a performance, eh.

    Leave a comment:


  • Black Caesar
    replied
    Originally posted by ValleyOne
    FIrst the video;

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5g7zlJx9u2E

    UCLA Police Officers were alerted to a person in the library who failed to furnish his student ID card (Requirement-as it was after hours and is NOT public property). The CSO got the campus cops. The student failed to comply with their orders and was subsequently tazered. This event, of police officers trying to protect not only the university, the staff, and the little bas-Ahem students, from a viable security threat goes on to show how (IN MY OPINION) colleges and universities have become adult day care centers were everyone is force fed a daily diet of what any professor feels about the world, and then hugs are given out.

    The other students UNAWARE of what's really going on start to get over emotional (you can hear a few females actually crying ) More than a few of them start to request the officers for their badge numbers and names. The crowd starts to tell the cops what they should and should not be doing.

    To be honest video actually pissed me off. I am tired of people assuming that the cops are an band of evil doers who have no training or the brains to do the job. They are dealing with a breach in security. The kid turned out to be a student and for whatever reasons chose to be a d1ck about showing his ID, who knows maybe he ran short on cash for his student loans and planned this so he could sue the department, Good Plan actually, he has about 65 people who would testify that the evil cops were being big meanies to him. I mean, after all, the actions of mean cops made a few cry... poor things.

    Here'sva one of the opinions of the brainiacs that have seen the video.



    An obvious future Rocket Scientist... Attack the police as a group, but no one has to get hurt? Follow your emotions without consideration for the consequences? I would like to know how this person envisions atacking the police without anyone getting hurt? A human wall perhaps?

    These little pukes in the library just piss me off. Im sorry for the rant, but I just can't stand these kids and how they feel the world is SOOO unjust. They have NO clue what unjust truely is...

    It wouldn't suprise me one damn bit to find out this was staged,

    Further resources;

    UCLA PD
    http://www.ucpd.ucla.edu/ucpd/zippdf...2011-15-06.pdf

    UCLA Student Newspaper (can you note the slant?)
    http://www.dailybruin.com/news/articles.asp?id=38958
    I believe it was a set up as well.

    The kid screams "Am I the only Martyr?" a couple of times. And now (after he dumped his 1st lawyer and decided not to pursue the racial profiling lawsuit) he's suing saying what happened to him is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act lol. Can't decide what kind of "discrimination" he faced lol.

    Leave a comment:


  • Black Caesar
    replied
    Originally posted by james2go30
    I think you are right. Dude wants attention...looked over some of his older posts and it does seem that way...but I'd rather have good attention and make friends on here not enemies. Wouldn't that be more sound.
    Yes, it would. But Prejudice (in this case, against any public police) makes people do stupid things. If it were private security instead of UCLAPD, Marchetti wouldn't have a problem with it.

    Leave a comment:


  • james2go30
    replied
    Come to think of it.

    Originally posted by Mr. Security
    I don't believe that. You're just baiting us for a reaction. If you really believed it, 22 years of experience would surely have given you the chance to do it. Furthermore, you haven't been arrested for a felony yet and your business license was just renewed, something that wouldn't happen if you acted out the way you talk.

    Maybe you just crave attention and the way to get it is to say things that tick people off. At any rate, I'm not buying it.
    I think you are right. Dude wants attention...looked over some of his older posts and it does seem that way...but I'd rather have good attention and make friends on here not enemies. Wouldn't that be more sound.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Security
    replied
    Originally posted by Marchetti, David, M
    Kid has a million dollar lawsuit - excessive force hands down. What are these cops wussies?, tasor em, stun em, cuff em, and drag em, it's that simple. They tasored the kid several times which was excessive no question about it. As for them telling him to get up, he does not have too it's called passive restence. That's when you drag him or carry him out to the squad car kicking and screaming if need be. After the third tasor they applied if I were present I would have walked up and dropped a cop on the spot, their actions amount to unnecessary assault with an electronic stun device. Hope they are all held liable. I don't think I would have tasored the kid I would have just tackled him and cuffed him, maybe apply a nerve pinch, restraint hold to get his cooperation.
    I don't believe that. You're just baiting us for a reaction. If you really believed it, 22 years of experience would surely have given you the chance to do it. Furthermore, you haven't been arrested for a felony yet and your business license was just renewed, something that wouldn't happen if you acted out the way you talk.

    Maybe you just crave attention and the way to get it is to say things that tick people off. At any rate, I'm not buying it.

    Leave a comment:


  • james2go30
    replied
    Originally posted by Marchetti, David, M
    Kid has a million dollar lawsuit - excessive force hands down. What are these cops wussies?, tasor em, stun em, cuff em, and drag em, it's that simple. They tasored the kid several times which was excessive no question about it. As for them telling him to get up, he does not have too it's called passive restence. That's when you drag him or carry him out to the squad car kicking and screaming if need be. After the third tasor they applied if I were present I would have walked up and dropped a cop on the spot, their actions amount to unnecessary assault with an electronic stun device. Hope they are all held liable. I don't think I would have tasored the kid I would have just tackled him and cuffed him, maybe apply a nerve pinch, restraint hold to get his cooperation.
    You got a real stiffy for police officers don't ya. Every situation is different. And to me the video is way too unclear to make a decision if they were right or wrong...both sides have a story best to hear both out before just making a judgement against a LE officer cause you don't like cops.

    Leave a comment:


  • CorpSec
    replied
    "After the third tasor they applied if I were present I would have walked up and dropped a cop on the spot, their actions amount to unnecessary assault with an electronic stun device."

    Dave, How do you suppose that would have panned out for you?

    Leave a comment:


  • Arff312
    replied
    Originally posted by Marchetti, David, M
    Kid has a million dollar lawsuit - excessive force hands down. What are these cops wussies?, tasor em, stun em, cuff em, and drag em, it's that simple. They tasored the kid several times which was excessive no question about it. As for them telling him to get up, he does not have too it's called passive restence. That's when you drag him or carry him out to the squad car kicking and screaming if need be. After the third tasor they applied if I were present I would have walked up and dropped a cop on the spot, their actions amount to unnecessary assault with an electronic stun device. Hope they are all held liable. I don't think I would have tasored the kid I would have just tackled him and cuffed him, maybe apply a nerve pinch, restraint hold to get his cooperation.

    Ok your postings are becoming a real peeve of mine real fast. I dont see how you can sit and second guess an officers decisions. An one in this field who has experience knows that we have a second to react and years to analyse. First of any one who has been trained on taser knows that you can administer followup tasings as needed. Secondly passive resistance is still resisting arrest in the state of CA. Lastly your comment about dropping a cop amounts is unprofessional to say the least. That shows why most cops dont like security. Hell i myself dislike most security because on a whole most guards are untrained, not equiped or willing to do a good job. That is why i like where i work now. we are encouraged to get more training with raises and incentives. Also as far as the tackling him almost all use of force policies go verbal, tase, physical, oc, baton, firearm.

    Leave a comment:


  • Marchetti, David, M
    replied
    Originally posted by HotelSecurity
    I saw this video before. I think it was on this forum.

    I too have to deal often with college aged young people who come to the hotel to take advantage of Quebec's lower than most states & provinces legal drinking age. I was reading the January issue of SECURITY magazine, page 12. North American Video is selling a "mosquito ultrasonic teenager deterrent device" I had to re-check the front cover to make sure this was not the April Fool's edition of the magazine. If it is true, apparently the device emits a sound that becomeS highly irritating to teenagers after 5 mniutes of exposure but due to natural hearing loss does not effect people over 30. I WANT SOME OF THESE BABIES!!!!!
    Easy listening music has the same effect :O)

    Leave a comment:


  • Marchetti, David, M
    replied
    Kid has a million dollar lawsuit - excessive force hands down. What are these cops wussies?, tasor em, stun em, cuff em, and drag em, it's that simple. They tasored the kid several times which was excessive no question about it. As for them telling him to get up, he does not have too it's called passive restence. That's when you drag him or carry him out to the squad car kicking and screaming if need be. After the third tasor they applied if I were present I would have walked up and dropped a cop on the spot, their actions amount to unnecessary assault with an electronic stun device. Hope they are all held liable. I don't think I would have tasored the kid I would have just tackled him and cuffed him, maybe apply a nerve pinch, restraint hold to get his cooperation.

    Leave a comment:


  • james2go30
    replied
    Yea

    Originally posted by locknid
    I wish we had a better video for this though. I do realize that the subject was not following commands and the other students were just making it worse, but I read somewhere that the officer involved has had several shady use of force issues. The guy sounded like he was nuts though(th subject getting tased) and most likely was doing it for show.
    the video was taken with a cell phone and you can't tell a whole lot from it.

    Leave a comment:


  • locknid
    replied
    I wish we had a better video for this though. I do realize that the subject was not following commands and the other students were just making it worse, but I read somewhere that the officer involved has had several shady use of force issues. The guy sounded like he was nuts though(th subject getting tased) and most likely was doing it for show.

    Leave a comment:

Leaderboard

Collapse
Working...
X