Per YouTube description:
Nov 14th, 2006, around 11:30 pm, Powell Library CLICC computer lab, UCLA: student shot with a Taser multiple times by UCPD officers, even after he was cuffed and motionless.According to eye witnesses, it started when student Mostafa Tabatabainejad did not show a Community Service Officer his student ID. Eye witnesses said the student was on his way leaving the lab when a UCPD officer approached and grabbed him by the exit of the lab. He objected to the physical contact by loudly repeating “don’t touch me”, and this is the point where the video starts.
According to wikipedia, Mostafa Tabatabainejad is a fourth-year student of philosophy and Middle Eastern and North African studies at UCLA. He is an American citizen of Iranian descent. He was 23 years old at the time of the incident and is Baha”i’ by religion.
wow. that was painful to watch. i know it’s hard to say what one would do in a situation like that, but is it ever worth it to protect the guy from those evil people? well, now i’m kinda pissed. great way to start the day!
This was some truly offensive thuggery.
But question: UCLA is a public institution, but doesn’t a university (even a public one) have the right to issue IDs and insist on them being shown? Just a question.
I am in absolutely no way defending these thugs. For one, as a public institution, UCLA has no right to practice racial preference or discrimination — which seems to be the case here. And even if it were entirely private, the force used was clearly in excess. I hope Mr. Tabatabainejad hires John Edwards and sues those bastards for all they’re worth.
i think that, because UCLA is state run, it should be held to the same standard as any government entity. if it were private, my tune would change. that may have been confusing wording, so, if state school wants to see i.d. – screw off. if private school wants to see i.d. – yes, sir.
“…sues those bastards for all they’re worth.”
if only they were worth something! lol
I understand your reasoning, but I’m not sure I agree. Example: Cynthia McKinney didn’t have her congressional ID. Should congressmen and women not be required to show ID? How about employees of a muncipal power company (not that there should be such a thing)? Should I be able to walk in and do whatever without showing ID? It is “public” by the same standards as a university, right? Further, how about public schools? What is to prevent pervs from trolling middle schools in search of young ballz? I think it is okay to make people show I.D. I do not think it is okay to only ask Baha’ist or people who look like they might be Baha’ists for I.D. And of course, I do not think it is appropriate to beat the shit out of them when they refuse to do so.
What a disturbing situation for everyone: the police, the student Mostafa Tabatabainejad, and his fellow students. It reminded me of a body having a severe attack reaction to itself. The sensory perceptions, the nervous system and the blood cells were all in an uproar. The first response is to let it all cool down before investigating the truth of it.
The article says that Mostafa is an Iranian Baha’i. This is very unfortunate on many levels. Firstly, for more than 150 years, up to the present day, Iranian Baha’is have suffered severe persecution, torture and even death just for the “crime” of being Baha’is. Many have fled their native land for refuge here in the U.S. and other places in the world where they can live and serve as decent, honest, caring human beings in peace and quiet. I believe they must all be suffering PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder) as a result of the inhumanities they and their families have experienced for many generations. One can only take so much. It could be that this situation triggered a flashback to Baha’i history in Iran. It would be outrageous to experience that here in America, and yet we are living in a very delicate time when our way of life is under threat, after all.
Nevertheless, we need to find a more humane way to address issues that must needs be addressed. We all need to be treated with the utmost kindliness and respect, while recognizing that we must each do our jobs. The police are under their own kinds of pressure, and consideration has to be given to them, too. What a different world it would be if we recognized that we all have PTSD, to one degree or another.
The resistant, violent behavior and language that Mostafa exhibited in the video was inconsistent with the principles and spirit of Baha’i teachings, but it is conceivable that he “snapped” under the pressure of internal and external forces. While a Baha’i attempts to practice peaceful co-existence in a world that is “out of order” through prayer, meditation, fasting, study and the practical application of conscious awareness in each moment, it is possible to “break down” as a human being.
I must commend the students for their self-restraint during the tense moments of such a horrendous scene. They were at once concerned, rushing to assist somehow while obviously feeling powerless to intervene. I couldn’t help but compare this situation with the violence at Kent State years ago. On one hand, it seemed the same, as if we haven’t learned a thing. On the other hand, this incident could have ended very badly if they had rioted. More power to them for not complicating an already difficult situation. It occurred to me that this will be a valuable lesson as part of their education as young adults in a world that they will soon inherit. I hope they graduate into their responsibilities with honors, committing themselves to promote an ever-advancing civilization – one based on true justice with unity, fairness and equity for all. In such a world, we take action, we reflect on it, discover the mistakes we’ve made, learn from them, and correct future actions, on and on and on. There’s always room for improvement? Evolution is creation unfolding, in light of divine knowledge.
Was Mostafa profiled because he was a Baha’i or because he was an Iranian?
Didn’t this happen like 6 months ago?
“Was Mostafa profiled because he was a Bahai or because he was an Iranian?” If you’re asking me, I was being facetious. He was profiled — my guess — because he “looked like a terrorist.” Sunni, Shiite, Sikh, Hindu, Baha’i, Zoroastrian, etc. — racist cops don’t ask and they don’t care.
“Was Mostafa profiled because he was a Bahai or because he was an Iranian?”
“because he “looked like a terrorist.” Sunni, Shiite, Sikh, Hindu, Baha’i, Zoroastrian, etc. — racist cops don’t ask and they don’t care.”
Ok, I understand your point. Well taken, but, to make another point: when we object to prejudice, we must be careful ourselves not to be prejudiced. Just because a person is a cop, doesn’t make him/her bad and/or wrong. This is not said to defend or excuse bad behavior in anyone, but they have a terrible job. I wouldn’t want it, would you? This is where the old saying originated, I guess: One bad apple spoils the whole barrel.
What a way to ruin an ideal: infiltrate.
I guess that’s where another saying applies: To thine own self, be true.
Sadly, there will always be those who are insincere, with malicious intent, or those who will misbehave according to their ‘beliefs’. They will answer for it, eventually, but what a terrible injustice to those who are seeking. It makes it that much harder to discover the ‘truth’ when we masquerade around in it as wolves in sheep’s clothing.
Another point I want to make is Baha’is aren’t terrorists – if a Baha’i acts like one, he/she’s an impostor. But, I guess they all say that, don’t they?
sumitra — Agreed. I am not assuming that these thugs were racists because they were “cops” — I’m assuming they were racist because they beat the living crap out of the guy. Maybe there’s an explanation other than racism. Maybe they’re not racists at all. But I’m basing my assumptions on evidence, not on their mere identities as cops.
Obviously Baha’ists (or is it just Baha’i?) aren’t terrorists. My point is that racial profiling is POLICY among many police forces, either written or unwritten, and if you “look” like a “Muslim” (as if a Muslim has a particular look), then you may get profiled.
Again, I could be totally presumptive and wrong here. I don’t think there’s any case to be made for “the guy deserved it” but the cops may have acted the way they did NOT out of racist or xenophobic motives, but out of generic thuggery. But when you see a white cop beating a black man for no real reason, is it not safe to ASSUME racism?
“I am not assuming that these thugs were racists because they were “cops” — I’m assuming they were racist because they beat the living crap out of the guy. Maybe there’s an explanation other than racism. Maybe they’re not racists at all. But I’m basing my assumptions on evidence, not on their mere identities as cops.”
You’ve heard what they say about the word ‘assume’? Hint: look at the lettering and hyphenate the word into three other words… Assumptions are not good science. They may precipitate inquiry but to draw conclusions and act upon them without proof is dangerous. Mostafa’s situation is a good case in point. Presumably, it was an assumption on the part of an authority figure that started the whole thing. So, perhaps a good rule of thumb would be: Assume not lest ye be assumed against! We would all like fair treatment. Someone has to set the example, make a beginning. Rather than assume anything, perhaps one may suppose certain things and then pursue them to discover the truth.
“Obviously Baha’ists (or is it just Baha’i?) aren’t terrorists.
‘Baha’i’ or ‘Baha’is’ is correct. Baha’ists is not! Thanks for your openness!
“My point is that racial profiling is POLICY among many police forces, either written or unwritten, and if you “look” like a “Muslim” (as if a Muslim has a particular look), then you may get profiled.”
Prejudice is a really old tendency, isn’t it? Will we ever get past it? Nowadays, with an everadvancing march toward more, not less, intermarriage, interfaith and international affiliations on the planet, we will have to find a better way.
“Again, I could be totally presumptive and wrong here.”
I like your humility here. The person who presumes him/herself to be ‘right’ is wrong from the outset. Who knows what ‘right’ is? Instead, Baha’i Writings tell us, “From the clash of differing opinions the spark of truth is revealed.” This is consultation, a specifically-defined process “which has for its purpose the investigation of truth.”
“I don’t think there’s any case to be made for “the guy deserved it” but the cops may have acted the way they did NOT out of racist or xenophobic motives, but out of generic thuggery.”
True. There are those who enter so-called “helping professions” like law enforcement and the military, even health care, strictly to have a ‘legal’ milieu for abuse through positions of authority. What a terrible injustice. I wish we could test applicants more thoroughly in the hiring process, to screen out the sickos. We may be close, as neuroscience technology advances to detect errant activity in the brain and nervous system. Perhaps one will have to submit to these kinds of tests routinely before hiring. Won’t that cause a stir among those who have fear?
“…when you see a white cop beating a black man for no real reason, is it not safe to ASSUME racism?”
No, its not necessarily safe to assume racism (anymore than its safe for a racist to assume evil in a black man). But, it is definitely safe to assume fear, which is probably at the heart of racism. One who has to forcibly aggress a feeling of superiority over another is probably an inferior person wearing a mask. His/her oppressive actions and behavior give him/her away.
A truly superior person doesn’t need to do this. His/her character speaks for itself, leaving him/her to be humble about it. A weak person can’t be humble; he/she has to puff him/herself up to seem bigger than he/she really is. Rather pitiful, albeit terribly dangerous. Talk about terrorism, eh? This is terrorism in its most insidious form.
sumitra – You seem to be suggesting that individuals should not make assumptions or presumptions in the absence of “proof.” If I walk in on my girlfriend and she’s naked in bed with my friend, even if they insist they only got naked “because it was too hot,” I think I’m safe to assume they’re lying. (True story, happened to my brother). I COULD be wrong, but where empirical evidence suggests a 2/3 or greater likelihood of something, I think it is appropriate to make the mental assumption. Taking action may require a greater preponderance of evidence, but when cops beat someone for no reason and that person is of a particular ethnicity that has been targeted as “dangerous,” then I think empirical data would show there’s a greater than 90% chance it was racially motivated. Assuming only makes an ass out of me if I’m wrong — and denying the obvious until you’re confronted with irrefutable proof makes one just as big of an ass unless they’re right.
“You seem to be suggesting that individuals should not make assumptions or presumptions in the absence of “proof.”
You provide good examples to make your point, G.E. I should modify the statement to say that there are always exceptions to the ‘rule’! Thank you.
back to the question of i.d. -
for me, i guess the difference is that those government workers you mention have provided de facto consent, by accepting employment with the NCS (national criminal syndicate). in that light, i guess that students at a public university have done the same.
i don’t recognize “public” property, or any other rights of those actively violating the rights of others. no compensation has been made in order to return those rights to the NCS and until such time, it can be afforded no rights. so, pervs can definitely troll the halls of public schools in search of young ballz (lol). because the NCS has no rights, they have no right to the property of the school, or to stop anyone from doing anything. the key there, is to get rid of those schools.
so, to summarize, it is ok to force people to show i.d. if they have consented to such activity by voluntarily associating with the NCS. it isn’t ok if they have not consented.
i feel like that little exchange was productive! thanks, smith!
“I think it is okay to make people show I.D.” — I should have clarified that I think it’s okay in THOSE circumstances. Not in general, and not without cause.
Maybee some fools have learn somthing? Show i.d. or …