Originally posted by Carrah
What I don't understand is why they don't ask students to show their school ID -before- they go into the library. If security is the reason for the random checks, isn't it a lot more secure to make students show their ID before they get inside? In that case, someone like this dude who was carrying on about the Patriot Act or "trying to make himself seem like an oppressed minority" would have no case at all if it wasn't a 'random' check and was instead a check that all students had to perform before gaining access to the library.
Direct quote from the article from the L.A. Times link you posted to begin this thread:

According to a campus police report, the incident began when community service officers, who serve as guards at the library, began their nightly routine of checking to make sure everyone using the library after 11 p.m. is a student or otherwise authorized to be there.

Campus officials said the long-standing policy was adopted to ensure students' safety.

When Tabatabainejad, 23, refused to provide his ID to the community service officer, the officer told him he would have to show it or leave the library, the report said.

After repeated requests, the officer left and returned with campus police, who asked Tabatabainejad to leave "multiple times," according to a statement by the UCLA Police Department.

"He continued to refuse," the statement said. "As the officers attempted to escort him out, he went limp and continued to refuse to cooperate with officers or leave the building."
This indicates several things: first of all, the guy in question wasn't subject to a "random" search or ID request - apparently, it was getting to the mandated hour at which only specific individuals were allowed to remain in the library - i.e. students and authorized personnel. This man did not wish to comply with this rule, which I've no doubt was universally applied. He then refused to leave as per the CSO's (which is a nice way of saying "some kid just doing a work-study job") requests, and THEN, after being informed the POLICE were being called, refused to leave. At VERY MINIMUM, that's two conscious decisions to break the law and remain on property you are not permitted to be on - not counting the fact the CSO probably asked several times.

From this point out, the account diverges. The police say he went limp and refused to move; he, and some students, say that he was walking towards the door until a police officer grabbed him on the arm (I imagine either to guide him out the door/make sure he doesn't make a break for it or to ensure he doesn't leave police custody before getting a citation, warning, or whatever standard operating procedure is). Assuming one of the two accounts is correct, he either:

1) Went limp, intentionally attempting to resist moving, in which case he would likely not be amenable to being handcuffed,

or

2) Started actively physically resisting the officers, in which case, the tasering was completely appropriate.

Do I think he needed to be tasered three or four times to take him out of the building? Probably not. Do I think he deserved it for intentionally making the CSO's life a living hell, making a scene in a public library at near-midnight, trespassing, and so on? You're god damned right he did.

The only - ONLY - unfortunate part about what the police did here is that they didn't (ostensibly) attempt to use handcuffs or some other form of restraint first, in order to prevent the tide of public opinion from swelling en masse in favor of this little thug. I also identify that it is far easier to make a retrospective call on someone else's judgment from the comfort of my laptop, without a small crowd of assembling (hostile) students and a screaming, violent suspect on my hands. Was what the officers did perfect? No. Was it reasonable? Absolutely - and that's all one can expect from law enforcement personnel.