From the OP, I read the initial Daily Bruin article and the police report, and watched some of the video. Since the video quality is not so good, I put the video in the background and listened to the audio. I also read the "Community responds ..." article linked from the front page of the Daily Bruin.
Is there any dispute over how the Taser was deployed, i.e. is whether it was used in "drive stun" mode in question? I did not read that from either of the articles. A quick Google search confirms that "drive stun" mode does not use the Taser projectile and is applied directly to the arrestee in the manner of a "stun gun".
How many UCPD officers responded? I believe I saw 3 or 4 in the video, which is insufficient to simultaneously remove the student and perform crowd control.
From informal tests done by self-defense enthusiasts circa 1999, it was found that consumer-grade (up to 100KV were tested, IIRC) stun guns are
ineffectual at stopping a determined attacker, particularly one who has experienced it previously. Their effectiveness relies on pain sensation and an element of surprise or unfamiliarity. In addition to sparring and marksmanship drills while being "stunned", several people shared amusing anecdotes where they cheerfully "stunned" themselves repeatedly, sometimes as a conversation starter. :Q
Stun guns have poor effectiveness with respect to motor incapacitation for 2 basic reasons: human skin is a very good electrical insulator and the terminals must be close together for the sake of portability. A Taser, when deployed in projectile mode, has prongs which spread apart in midair and puncture the skin. Once the skin is punctured, the required voltage is much lower - the Taser uses only 50KV.
Since 1999, the voltages available have increased - I found a 975KV stun gun (3xCR123A) for $65 online. AFAICT, the basic technology hasn't changed, just higher battery voltages and/or larger capacitors. Furthermore, the marketing language hasn't changed either - the highest voltage stun guns claim to incapacitate a subject's motor function for 5-10 seconds - the same claim that was made back in 1999 and since refuted. I believe that a higher voltage stun gun is more likely to fulfill its claims (I am incredulous) and that it will definitely hurt worse.
My reasoning and conclusions, mostly from listening to the video:
- The taser was used in "drive stun" mode, which is much less likely to incapacitate motor function and is more used for pain compliance, according to the official Taser training manual, quoted below. The student's screams of pain further bolster the conclusion that "drive stun" was used.
- If "drive stun" was used, it is unlikely that the student was incapacitated and unable to stand.
- The student demonstrates that he is capable of speaking when he yells a couple or few times (not counting the screaming as the Taser is applied). At no point did I hear "I have a medical condition" (as one of the articles claimed - please post an approximate time if you heard it), "I can't get up", "my legs don't work", etc.
- Since it is likely that the student was capable of standing and did not specifically protest that he was unable, I believe that his not standing was deliberate non-compliance as described in the police report.
From this article
The Taser training manual advises that because it is not incapacitating, this [drive stun] mode can lead to "prolonged struggles" and that "it is in these types of scenarios that officers are often facing accusations of excessive force."
Originally posted by: LtPage1
Tasers have proven again and again, in "accident" after accident, to be anything but nonlethal weapons. This guy got lucky that he didn't die.
The ineffectiveness of the Taser in "drive stun" mode at disrupting the nervous system is accompanied by a reduced risk of sudden death. It should be no more strenuous than standard pain compliance. I wonder how well breaking the student's fingers - accidentally, but fairly easy to do with inadequate training - would have gone over.