While we're on the subject of using force as a legitimate part of your job vs. using force because you like hurting people and now you've got a job that gives you a passable explanation for having done so, the final public report on the UCLA taser incident from last November is available.

The conclusions of this report are that the officer's actions were completely outside of UCLA policy and that the policy is also too liberal. This is obviously unwelcome news to various commentators who supported this incident as model police behavior. However, for their benefit it there is also a second "internal" report that you and I are not allowed to read which concludes that there was absolutely nothing wrong with what happened. This enables UCLA management to change their policies without admitting that anyone has done anything wrong.

Which report is correct? Such questions completely miss the point. Its not about right or wrong. If you want to really understand all of this please refer to my previous post on how everything everywhere actually works.

At the behest of acting UCLA Chancellor Norman Abrams, the Police Assessment Resource Center (PARC) conducted a seven- month, independent investigation of a November 14, 2006 incident at UCLA’s Powell Library in which the UCLA Police Department (UCLAPD ) arrested UCLA student Mostafa Tabatabainejad. This report sets forth our factual findings and conclusions.

This story has no heroes. The event triggering the repeated electrical shocking of Tabatabainejad was a declination by the UCLA student to produce a BruinCard identification in the Powell Library computer lab after hours. While the student should have simply obeyed the order to produce the card, and by not doing so brought trouble upon himself, the police response was substantially out of proportion to the provocation. There were many ways in which the UCLAPD officers involved could have handled this incident competently, professionally, and with minimal force. We find that one UCLAPD officer violated UCLA use of force policies in the incident. We further conclude that UCLAPD’s current policies are, in any event, unduly permissive, giving the police unnecessary latitude, and are inconsistent with the policies of other universities and leading police departments across the country, including other University of California campuses, the LAPD, and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD). The UCLAPD policy stands alone in its legitimization of the Taser as a pain compliance device against passive resisters. The current UCLA policy is more permissive than the Sacramento Police Department policy on which it was based and the Taser policy recommended by its chosen outside expert on the question.