When I started searching through the archives of the Daily Bruin, UCLA's student newspaper, I found this article from 2004:
But despite the initial investment, [UCPD Lieutenant John] Adams said the [taser] guns are actually a cost-saving option because they help prevent lawsuits.
...
Nearly a year ago, university police officer Terrence Duren was involved in a close-range combat situation in Kerckhoff Hall in which Willie Davis Frazier, a homeless man, was shot twice.
Tasers will prevent lawsuits? Obviously not, UCLA. Tasers don't prevent lawsuits, people with good judgment prevent lawsuits. Sound familiar?
Guns don't kill people. People kill people.
We have a culture problem, not a technology problem. There's more.
The multiple tasing of UCLA student Mostafa Tabatabainejad is extremely frightening to me, because it happened to what appeared to be a non-threatening student in my home state of California. I don't understand why this had to happen, so I've been spending my free time researching the issue.
What I found is that, in 2004, the UCPD at UCLA considered purchasing tasers less than a year after Officer Duren created quite a stir by shooting a homeless man. Duren has quite a history, and it's been discussed in this diary so I don't feel a need to go through it again. But after UCLA was unable to fire Duren, they decided in April 2004 to not buy tasers, even though:
At least fifteen California college and university police departments have bought tasers for their forces, including UC Davis, UC Irvine, UCSD and UC Riverside.
The apparent rationale is that the tasers we not as effective as hoped. They didn't work well on suspects with baggy clothes and, more importantly, there was a concern that officers would confuse the tasers with their firearms.
But just 6 months later the UCPD announced their purchase of 16 stun guns. The new rationale seemed simple and logical:
But despite the initial investment, [UCPD Lieutenant John] Adams said the guns are actually a cost-saving option because they help prevent lawsuits. The guns digitally record every time they are fired and because makers say they are non-lethal, they help prevent violence between officers and suspects.
"This is a litigious society. One lawsuit far exceeds $22,000. This is actually a fiscally responsible decision as well," Adams said.
So this was meant to prevent "litigious" situations, like Officer Duren shooting a homeless man. But wait a second. This solution removes the gun, but doesn't remove the bad judgment of the officer - in fact, it seems to encourage it. Does that mean that Officer Duren would have SHOT Tabatabainejad if he didn't have a taser?
Fast forward to 2006. Most University of California campuses equip their officers with tasers. Why haven't we heard of any problems to date? Here's a thought from today's LA Times:
Police officers on six UC campuses carry Taser guns, but UCLA appears to be alone in expressly allowing officers to stun not only violent suspects but those who are passively resisting their orders.
(emphasis mine)
So UCLA adopted tasers after 4 other UC campuses. What they didn't adopt is the other campus' taser procedures. The difference obviously has ramifications for UCLA. Let's compare instances in which the UC campuses used their tasers (from the same LA Times article):
- UC Davis - after a man shot a semiautomatic weapon at officers
- UC San Diego - after a drunk driver would not exit his vehicle (which potentially makes it a deadly weapon)
- UC San Diego - after a man held a woman at knifepoint
- UC Los Angeles - after a student dropped "limp" to the floor
One of these things is not like the other...one of these things does not belong. Can you guess which one?
So I think we're getting closer to the cause of the problem. Or at least, two causes:
- Officer Duren appears to be a violent man. Equipping him with a taser does not make him any less likely to use excessive force. UCLA gave this man a weapon at their own risk - a risk that has clearly cost them.
- The UCLA UCPD has created a culture where force can be used for virtually any reason. In my diary from yesterday, we saw that the UCLA UCPD taser policy is very vague and gives officers broad discretion to use their taser. In fact, it looks like they can use their taser on anybody who is found to be "resisting," whatever that means. The difference? The other UC campuses have reduced their liability while empowering their officers. UCLA has potentially cost taxpayers millions for their poor judgment. By not training their officers to use force rarely and to protect and serve at all times, UCLA has opened the door to numerous lawsuits, not to mention terrible PR.
Here, it is clear that the tasers could not have prevented lawsuits. No, if UCPD wanted to prevent lawsuits while concurrently protecting the community, it shouldn't have just purchased the tasers.
It should have changed its culture.