With the recent release of the independent investigation of the Powell Taser incident, new use of force policies are in the process of being implemented, but the university is not covering all of its bases.
Of the nine recommendations offered by the report commissioned by former acting Chancellor Norman Abrams, only four are on the fast track for integration into the university Taser and use of force policy. They include limiting the use of the drive-stun option of Tasers, prohibition of the use of Tasers on passive or mildly resistant people, prohibition of the practice of brandishing a Taser without an intent to use it, and also calling upon university police to define the varying levels of resistance.
Although these recommendations are a step in the right direction with respect to reviewing the use of force policy, the other five recommendations, which are equally important, are falling by the wayside.
There is no talk of adopting one of the recommendations, which asks for the creation of a force continuum chart ““ a resource many departments already employ. The chart would be used to help dictate the appropriate use of force for different situations.
Another neglected recommendation, disallowing the repeated use of a Taser, would help avoid causing permanent damage or even death to a person because of the nature of the Taser and the receiver’s health condition. This common sense regulation is not on the fast track and demonstrates the incomplete and weak actions being taken to avoid an escalation of a situation like the one in Powell.
Another important but disregarded recommendation suggests to mandate officers to give a verbal warning before using a Taser.
Though officers involved in the Powell incident did offer warnings, why not make it part of standard procedure to prohibit the use of a potentially lethal weapon without warning the individual first?
Law enforcement should allow people in question the opportunity to verbally diffuse the situation before being physically abused, which brings us to the actions of the Community Service Officers and the UCPD officers on the scene.
The CSO on duty didn’t exert enough effort to verbally diffuse the tension, which was evidence of the little training CSOs receive in this area.
This same lack of communication holds true for the UCPD officers, who did not attempt to fully employ verbal negotiation before resorting to pain compliance.
In fairness to all sides, it is obvious that both the student whom the Taser was used against, Mostafa Tabatabainejad, and the CSO could have acted differently to de-escalate the situation. As the events unfolded though, they were both limited in power relative to the police officers.
The UCPD’s excessive use of force and lack of negotiation shows a major flaw in their actions. They were expected to play the role of the experienced professionals in diffusing tension and violence, not star in a violent drama.
All of the policy recommendations should not only be implemented at the UCLA campus, but extended to all UC campuses for a comprehensive and consistent use of force policy.
Both CSOs and the university police should be receiving further training in verbally diffusing a situation and using pain compliance as a last resort ““ in addition to following state mandates.
The violent escalation of the situation at Powell could have been stabilized with more negotiation and less trigger-happy professionals.