TAZED

[Czechs Mex]

Re: TAZED

My university is essentially in downtown Minneapolis, and our university's computer lab is frequently overrun with people stealing *****. We've had computers stolen, monitors stolen, and most often, possessions of unsuspecting students stolen.

There are signs up all over the place - don't leave bags unattended. If you are in a room with doors that lock, don't prop it open. These are all preventative measures, and checking student IDs is the same. It keeps non-students out of the building, which reduces the potential for theft. Additionally, it frees up oft-needed computers for the actual students who need to do work.

Taxpayers help fund the school, but they are not given the right to access anything and everything that the school provides. They aren't allowed to take classes without paying tuition (or at least an auditing fee), and they aren't allowed to use certain computer labs without paying a student services fee.

Taxpayers are certainly given some privileges for contributing to the university, as they should, but they are not paying the tuition that students are paying, and thus should not have equal access to every service the university provides.

That being said, the police officer should not have resorted to tasering the guy. He was not attacking or physically threatening the officer in any way, and thus violence should not have been used. If he refuses to comply with the rules, just cuff him and be done with it.

And that being said, that kid was a real douche.

[The Toecutter]

Re: TAZED

If this rule supposedly is a preventitive measure for vandalism and other crimes, then why are they still occuring so frequently as you say?

Helping free up computers for students that need them, now that is a valid arguement. But a full ID shouldn't really be needed to prove status as a student to begin with. These things are easily forged anyhow.

While taxpayers may not be allowed to take the classes, it was common in trhe past for them to be able to attend them, provided they aren't providing a disruption to the classroom.

Further, I can assure you there exist many cases of taxpayers over a period paying more taxes to fund such schools than any student will ever pay. But this depends on the person in question and the location. The distribution of the tax burden per unit of service is by no means equal or voluntary.

[Czechs Mex]

Re: TAZED

If this rule supposedly is a preventitive measure for vandalism and other crimes, then why are they still occuring so frequently as you say?

I wasn't suggesting that such a measure would eliminate theft, only that it would reduce it. Whether or not it actually does is debatable, but I think a fairly strong argument could be made that it does indeed reduce the potential for theft.

But a full ID shouldn't really be needed to prove status as a student to begin with. These things are easily forged anyhow.

What is a more reasonable alternative? I see pulling out a card to be a fairly non-intrusive method for proving your status as a student.

Further, I can assure you there exist many cases of taxpayers over a period paying more taxes to fund such schools than any student will ever pay. But this depends on the person in question and the location.

Students themselves are also taxpayers, though, so they are still paying a quantity of money (tuition, fees, etc.) that non-students are not.

Also, aside from the points we've been making, it should be noted that according to the student, the reason he failed to comply was not that he thought the ID rule was unjust, but that he thought he was being racially profiled.

[The Toecutter]

Re: TAZED

I wasn't suggesting that such a measure would eliminate theft, only that it would reduce it. Whether or not it actually does is debatable, but I think a fairly strong argument could be made that it does indeed reduce the potential for theft.

Whether it actually does reduce theft or other crime or not is one of the determining factors for its justification. Any reasonable policy would look for proof of a given method in reducing a certain crime before implementing it. Whether or not UCLA did such I don't know, but if they did their homework, they would have found that effects of such policy aren't statistically significant, if even present at all. An argument can be made, but it also needs supporting evidence to have some modicum of validity.

What is a more reasonable alternative? I see pulling out a card to be a fairly non-intrusive method for proving your status as a student.

How about a card that doesn't have one's name, number, and other identifying factors on it? Perhaps some watermarked symbol. Would serve the same purpose, and is no easier to forge than a student ID anyhow for the offchance anyone is willing to spend that amount of time for such a purpose.

Students themselves are also taxpayers, though, so they are still paying a quantity of money (tuition, fees, etc.) that non-students are not.

Depends on many external factors. Get enough grants, and you aren't paying ****. Whether or not this is reasonable is up for debate, but I think it is. Universities are multifunctional, and while first and foremost their function is to teach, they are also centers for research. If publically funded even in part, the public should have access to what they paid for. But exclusion for its own sake, well, the taxpayers should be able to get their money back on that, IMO...

Also, aside from the points we've been making, it should be noted that according to the student, the reason he failed to comply was not that he thought the ID rule was unjust, but that he thought he was being racially profiled.

The potential for racial profiling itself would risk making the rule unjust, but your point stands.

[ErikaFuzzbottom]

Re: TAZED

And here I thought that this topic inflated due to intelligent discussion.

There's a rule that you can't use the library after 11pm without a school ID, yes. Who knows why the rule is in place. Could be that it's because there's isn't nearly as much staff on hand to keep an eye on the place if it remained public overnight. It's easier to keep track of people when there aren't too many there to keep track of. But who care's why it's there, anyway? The point is, it was there and was in effect.

The guy was there once the rule was in place. He was randomly checked (key word "randomly") and he had no such ID. The check is made to make sure the rule is being followed. No sense making a rule you're not gonna enforse, true? He was asked to leave, but refused. Perhaps he just wanted to finish what he was doing real fast. Perhaps it was because he really did think he was singled out because of race. But he still refused.

He left as the cops were coming in. Maybe he left because he saw the cops coming in, maybe he was already on his way out. People say it was the latter case, and if he was on his way out, the cops should've let him pass since they wanted him to leave in the first place. Instead, they grabbed him.

He made a ruckus because they grabbed him. Cop decides to tazer him, knocking him onto the ground. He refuses to get up, instead screaming. So they tazer him some more. The crowd ask for the Cops' badge numbers, they get threatened. The guy broke the rules, but the cops took it way too far. What's so hard to understand about that?

[Czechs Mex]

Re: TAZED

And here I thought that this topic inflated due to intelligent discussion.

*farts*

[The Toecutter]

Re: TAZED

There's plenty of sense in not enforcing a rule, particularly if it infringes upon ones rights or will cause problems that normally wouldn't occur if attempts are made to enforce it on individuals that pose no harm or threat to others or property. This goes back to what was said about rules and laws being justified by the very fact that they exist... The way these sorts rules are typically enforced relies on fallacy as a rule and not an exception. The rules say so, therefore they are right by default?

I think it's a sad reflection on this nation when so many people see an identity as something that should be freely given on command just because someone with a badge says so.

I get the points made in this topic, but others don't seem to grasp precisely what is wrong with the rules made and why.

Don't people have a concept of what individualism and anonymity are anymore, and why those things are important? Judging by some of the responses to this here and elsewhere it appears as if most don't and as if some of those which do grasp this don't want these things to exist things anyhow, usually in the name of 'security'.

[Czechs Mex]

Re: TAZED

Hey Terr, you should get on facebook.

[The Toecutter]

Re: TAZED

Facebook is gay.

[Caciss]

Re: TAZED

There's plenty of sense in not enforcing a rule, particularly if it infringes upon ones rights or will cause problems that normally wouldn't occur if attempts are made to enforce it on individuals that pose no harm or threat to others or property. This goes back to what was said about rules and laws being justified by the very fact that they exist... The way these sorts rules are typically enforced relies on fallacy as a rule and not an exception. The rules say so, therefore they are right by default?

I think it's a sad reflection on this nation when so many people see an identity as something that should be freely given on command just because someone with a badge says so.

I get the points made in this topic, but others don't seem to grasp precisely what is wrong with the rules made and why.

Don't people have a concept of what individualism and anonymity are anymore, and why those things are important? It appears as if many don't and as if some of those which do grasp this don't want these things to exist things anyhow.

I just don't see why showing a simple ID, because of a curfew on a computer lab -- probably in place to protect tax-payers money and other people in the lab -- is suddenly robbing of us our individualism and anonymity. There are much more serious cases where these rights are taken form us, rather than useage of a computer lab.

[The Toecutter]

Re: TAZED

I just don't see why showing a simple ID, because of a curfew on a computer lab -- probably in place to protect tax-payers money and other people in the lab -- is suddenly robbing of us our individualism and anonymity. There are much more serious cases where these rights are taken form us, rather than useage of a computer lab.

You either have these things or you don't. By definition, there is no such thing as being 'somewhat anonymous' or 'partially anonymous'. While it is true that there exist far more egregious infringements on these things, even the less noticable ones matter too and it is through these less visible cases that rights can also be eroded. If you aren't doing anything wrong, you shouldn't have anything to worry about, right? Heh... Those people who follow that line of reasoning will find certain concepts entirely beyond their realm of comprehension.

If these cops can't even use their eyes and ears to prevent crimes from occuring, and must use arbitrary rules that statistically aren't much help(eg. random identification, such as the case of surveillance cameras presented earlier), then perhaps they shouldn't be wearing that badge to begin with.

And yet these particular ones were irrational and overzealous so much that they decided to taser someone was was walking away from them and posed to them no threat. The real losers in all of this of course are the taxpayers. If this kid gets a settlement, its not the police that committed this act that will really be paying, but the taxpayers...

[ErikaFuzzbottom]

Re: TAZED

I thought it was one of the librarians or something that did the check, and went to grab a cop or three after the person refused.

It's not about whether the rule is justified. It never was. And if you're not gonna enforce a rule, why bother having the rule at all?

[IRC]

Re: TAZED

How about a card that doesn't have one's name, number, and other identifying factors on it? Perhaps some watermarked symbol. Would serve the same purpose, and is no easier to forge than a student ID anyhow for the offchance anyone is willing to spend that amount of time for such a purpose.

So you want a card to identify people that has no identifying factors on it?

With an student id there is a way to tell that you are who you claim to be and whether you are actually allowed to be where you are. Without identifying factors there is no accountability and an increased possibility for abuse.

Or what if you need proof of age?

Depends on many external factors. Get enough grants, and you aren't paying ****. Whether or not this is reasonable is up for debate, but I think it is. Universities are multifunctional, and while first and foremost their function is to teach, they are also centers for research. If publically funded even in part, the public should have access to what they paid for. But exclusion for its own sake, well, the taxpayers should be able to get their money back on that, IMO...

Even if you aren't technically paying for it, you are still doing the legwork necessary for those grants.

Don't people have a concept of what individualism and anonymity are anymore, and why those things are important? It appears as if many don't and as if some of those who do grasp this don't want these things to exist things anyhow.

I just don't care. Would I want someone tapping my phone to see if I'm a terrorist? No, but they'd be wasting their time because I'm not doing anything that's going to incriminate me. If some agent somewhere wants to know that I talked to my brother today about what classes I'm taking next semester then fine. It's a waste of tax money but that's not an issue of anonymity.

At my school's library you have to give them your id to use a computer. They put it in a binder and give you slip that says what computer you're signed up for. Oh and you right your name and id number on a sign in sheet. When you're done with the computer you get you id back.

Now maybe I'm crazy, but just don't see what's the big deal is.

And as far as UCLA guy, his id wasn't a factor in him getting tasered. It was him falling on the floor and screaming his head off that got him tasered. It's in the video, they don't say, "show me your id or you're going to be tasered," they tell him to stand up. He chose to yell about the Patriot Act.

[The Toecutter]

Re: TAZED

I thought it was one of the librarians or something that did the check, and went to grab a cop or three after the person refused.

May have been. I'll have to check.

It's not about whether the rule is justified. It never was. And if you're not gonna enforce a rule, why bother having the rule at all?

If you can get this far, perhaps you can then understand that more rules aren't an automatic solution to the problems presented. If enforcing it creates more problems than it solves or poses a significant risk of incidences as seen in this video occuring, then it shouldn't even be in place to begin with.

There was a time when you didn't normally need to carry ID with you to go to such places regardless of the hours, yet now that you do, crimes that were intended to be prevented still occur. All this really does is provide extra hassel for a majority that is not doing anything wrong, in many cases infringing upon their rights, and in some cases heavily infringing upon their rights. And you're back to where you started. A few more crimes, and more extreme measures may be used to try to prevent them. It's not the criminal or potential criminal that suffers in the end.

So you want a card to identify people that has no identifying factors on it? With an student id there is a way to tell that you are who you claim to be and whether you are actually allowed to be where you are. Without identifying factors there is no accountability and an increased possibility for abuse.

The only identifying factor needed is the school the person is attending. Anything else is extraneous to the purpose intended.

Or what if you need proof of age?

I could understand that for signing legally binding contracts and such, but to enter a library?

Even if you aren't technically paying for it, you are still doing the legwork necessary for those grants.

Depends on the grant, really.

I just don't care. Would I want someone tapping my phone to see if I'm a terrorist? No, but they'd be wasting their time because I'm not doing anything that's going to incriminate me. If some agent somewhere wants to know that I talked to my brother today about what classes I'm taking next semester then fine. It's a waste of tax money but that's not an issue of anonymity.

Sure it's an issue of anonymity. It's none of their damn business. One key problem is that people like you don't care, and have few if any qualms with the liberties of others being sacrificed in the same manner without their consent. Probable cause or warrant? There was a reason that these things were written into the constitution as a prerequisite for a search or seizure. Allowing these things to occur without these criteria met presupposes that those doing the searching aren't going to abuse it, or that even if they did, there's nothing wrong with it. If you were harmed as a result of such a policy you might change your opinion. It has happened to law abiding citizens many times before, and also to those who weren't doing anything that harmed others or their property or posed a risk to others or their property.

[ErikaFuzzbottom]

Re: TAZED

Even if the rule was unfair, he still broke it, and the cops still took the enforcement way too far.

And as far as UCLA guy, his id wasn't a factor in him getting tasered. It was him falling on the floor and screaming his head off that got him tasered. It's in the video, they don't say, "show me your id or you're going to be tasered," they tell him to stand up. He chose to yell about the Patriot Act.

They still could've handed it better.