PDA

View Full Version : Phillies fan tasered after running onto field



Pages : [1] 2

durl
05-04-2010, 09:31 AM
Stop or I'll Taze!!

http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/sports/Phillies-Fan-Tased-for-Rushing-Field-92739934.html

The inevitable discussion will be whether the use of a Taser was excessive force. I have to admit that I don't see a problem with it.

Chip R
05-04-2010, 09:37 AM
Don't taze me, bro.

NJReds
05-04-2010, 09:41 AM
Pretty simple. Don't run on the field like an idiot, and you won't get tazed. Simple enough.

westofyou
05-04-2010, 09:44 AM
I'd have payed to see Morganna tasered.

George Anderson
05-04-2010, 09:51 AM
I'd have payed to see Morganna tasered.

Aim for the chest.

Chip R
05-04-2010, 09:52 AM
Aim for the chest.

You couldn't miss.

Cyclone792
05-04-2010, 09:53 AM
Considering it was a Phillies fan, chances are it was deserved.

Chip R
05-04-2010, 09:55 AM
Considering it was a Phillies fan, chances are it was deserved.


And not excessive force either. I would think the same could be said about Cubs fans.

IowaRed
05-04-2010, 09:56 AM
On the surface it seems to be a little excessive. It appeared this was a kid just running around like a goofball but I'm not a police/security officer who has to make split second decisions all the time about the intentions of idiots. If it is going to prevent a Tom Gamboa incident then I'm certainly in favor of the taser.

WMR
05-04-2010, 09:58 AM
Most Philly fans could probably use a good tasering, to be perfectly honest.

dunner13
05-04-2010, 10:00 AM
If you obey the stadium rules and stay off the field there is a 0% chance of you getting tased.

alexad
05-04-2010, 10:04 AM
Good for the Police. Do not be stupid and you do not get tasered.

Chip R
05-04-2010, 10:08 AM
If it is going to prevent a Tom Gamboa incident then I'm certainly in favor of the taser.


Yeah. You never know when something like that is going to happen. And it may act as a deterrent to other fans who have the same idea. Of course these people are usually drunk/high at the time they make this decision so they aren't showing the best judgement in the first place.

Fans should not go onto the field and players should not go into the stands. If I were running MLB, I would tell teams if they can't control their fans, they can't sell beer until they can. 99 times out of 100 this is caused by someone who has had too much to drink.

JaxRed
05-04-2010, 10:11 AM
Taze them before they can throw up on you.

westofyou
05-04-2010, 10:11 AM
Yeah. You never know when something like that is going to happen. And it may act as a deterrent to other fans who have the same idea. Of course these people are usually drunk/high at the time they make this decision so they aren't showing the best judgement in the first place.

Fans should not go onto the field and players should not go into the stands. If I were running MLB, I would tell teams if they can't control their fans, they can't sell beer until they can. 99 times out of 100 this is caused by someone who has had too much to drink.

Worcester Rules eh?

durl
05-04-2010, 10:16 AM
On the surface it seems to be a little excessive. It appeared this was a kid just running around like a goofball but I'm not a police/security officer who has to make split second decisions all the time about the intentions of idiots. If it is going to prevent a Tom Gamboa incident then I'm certainly in favor of the taser.

Look at it this way, what if they tackled the kid and broke one of his ribs? Or one of the security personnel were to get injured trying to apprehend the jerk, er...guy. While that's not highly likely, a Taser is non-lethal and it put an end to the incident.

Still, I can't help but think that every security personnel that's had to chase down a fan on the field is LOVING the fact that this kid got tazed. :D

Chip R
05-04-2010, 10:16 AM
Worcester Rules eh?


Old school, baby!

nate
05-04-2010, 10:18 AM
It could've been part of the between-inning entertainment.

:cool:

George Anderson
05-04-2010, 10:22 AM
It could've been part of the between-inning entertainment.

:cool:

Yea pull random fans out of the stands and have security chase them during the half inning. If you don't get tasered you win a coupon for a free car wash. :thumbup:

_Sir_Charles_
05-04-2010, 11:25 AM
Yea pull random fans out of the stands and have security chase them during the half inning. If you don't get tasered you win a coupon for a free car wash. :thumbup:

And hey, let the kids get in on the fun to like in "The Hangover". :D

SunDeck
05-04-2010, 11:51 AM
One of these would be pretty cool:

http://www.technovelgy.com/graphics/content08/NET-2000%20Shooting%20Net.jpg

RedEye
05-04-2010, 11:54 AM
Look at it this way, what if they tackled the kid and broke one of his ribs? Or one of the security personnel were to get injured trying to apprehend the jerk, er...guy. While that's not highly likely, a Taser is non-lethal and it put an end to the incident.


Actually, I think that's debatable. Tasers can actually be very dangerous, and their effects on the body are still misunderstood (http://www.amnesty.ca/themes/tasers_backgrounder.php).

Cedric
05-04-2010, 11:56 AM
My dad always said if you put yourself in this kind of situation you better deal with any consequence of your actions.

bucksfan2
05-04-2010, 11:56 AM
Kid got tased and I have no issue with it. But the officer chasing after him looked to be a tad bit out of shape. The whole chase was pretty funny. Nothing is like watching 5 out of shape adults chasing around a drunk idiot.

Raisor
05-04-2010, 12:00 PM
http://lgo.mit.edu/blog/drewhill/files/dont-taze-me-bro1.JPG

TheNext44
05-04-2010, 12:09 PM
Actually, I think that's debatable. Tasers can actually be very dangerous, and their effects on the body are still misunderstood (http://www.amnesty.ca/themes/tasers_backgrounder.php).

While I am all for abusing Phillie fans, you are absolutely correct. People have died from being Tasered. It should not be used lightly. Unfortunately, Tasering has become the M.O. for lazy cops. There are definitely times to use a taser, but not wanting to run after a drunk fan is not one of them.

NJReds
05-04-2010, 12:45 PM
While I am all for abusing Phillie fans, you are absolutely correct. People have died from being Tasered. It should not be used lightly. Unfortunately, Tasering has become the M.O. for lazy cops. There are definitely times to use a taser, but not wanting to run after a drunk fan is not one of them.

I don't think the cops/security should be in the business of deciding which idiot is just going to run around, and which one is going to do something violent to a player/coach. Someone could die being tackled, too, if they hit their head or break their back.

If you don't run on the field it's not something you'll have to worry about.

Brutus
05-04-2010, 12:52 PM
There's really no excuse to taze someone unless they are getting violently rowdy or impose a physical threat to someone. There's no way some cop can convince me that a 17-year old kid, who is running around on a baseball field, is a physical threat.

You catch the kid, he spends a night in jail and gets charged with criminal trespassing. He pays his fine, maybe spends a few extra days in jail, and that's that. Really no reason for the excessive force here.

I don't advocate idiotic behavior. However, a 17-year old trying to get a thrill from running on a baseball field is harmless in the grand scheme of things.

Chip R
05-04-2010, 12:55 PM
There's really no excuse to taze someone unless they are getting violently rowdy or impose a physical threat to someone. There's no way some cop can convince me that a 17-year old kid, who is running around on a baseball field, is a physical threat.

You catch the kid, he spends a night in jail and gets charged with criminal trespassing. He pays his fine, maybe spends a few extra days in jail, and that's that. Really no reason for the excessive force here.

I don't advocate idiotic behavior. However, a 17-year old trying to get a thrill from running on a baseball field is harmless in the grand scheme of things.

Tell that to Tom Gamboa.

Brutus
05-04-2010, 01:01 PM
Tell that to Tom Gamboa.

So one incident out of how many thousands of streakers or fans running on the field justifies using excessive force?

SunDeck
05-04-2010, 01:11 PM
Tell that to Tom Gamboa.


Those guys were on him before anyone with a taser could have done anything. If there was any lesson to be learned from the Tom Gamboa incident, it is that the field should be secured more effectively.
And that some people should not be allowed to have children.

Chip R
05-04-2010, 01:32 PM
So one incident out of how many thousands of streakers or fans running on the field justifies using excessive force?


That depends on your definition of excessive force.

Brutus
05-04-2010, 01:32 PM
And that some people should not be allowed to have children.

I'm in favor of passing a national IQ threshold to permit offspring conception.

:thumbup:

Slyder
05-04-2010, 01:36 PM
Stop or I'll Taze!!

http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/sports/Phillies-Fan-Tased-for-Rushing-Field-92739934.html

The inevitable discussion will be whether the use of a Taser was excessive force. I have to admit that I don't see a problem with it.

What happens if this bozo as he ran around pulled a weapon out or just did like that drunk in Chicago and tried to attack someone? Was it excessive? I think not, I'm sorry buying a ticket doesnt give you the right to trespass on the field during the game. I'm actually surprised its gone on this long without this step being taken before.

Cedric
05-04-2010, 01:40 PM
So one incident out of how many thousands of streakers or fans running on the field justifies using excessive force?

Yeah. Do the right thing.

Brutus
05-04-2010, 01:42 PM
That depends on your definition of excessive force.

Using a weapon on an unarmed kid (or even adult for that matter) that has, at least in several documented cases, caused death, should by everyone's definition be excessive.

No weapon? Not wanted for a violent crime? Not a likely threat of physical harm? Really not seeing any reasons to discharge a weapon on him or inflict bodily pain. Anything in this case beyond catching him, throwing him to the ground and cuffing him seems excessive.

I've never been stunned, so I can't say how much it hurts. But since there have been dozens of reported cases of the device causing serious injury or death, I would say it better be used in the utmost necessary circumstances.

Poor judgement by this kid (emphasis on kid) but even worse judgment by the officer. This is unfortunately becoming too common.

Brutus
05-04-2010, 01:43 PM
What happens if this bozo as he ran around pulled a weapon out or just did like that drunk in Chicago and tried to attack someone? Was it excessive? I think not, I'm sorry buying a ticket doesnt give you the right to trespass on the field during the game. I'm actually surprised its gone on this long without this step being taken before.

He didn't draw a weapon, though. If he had, by all means, stun him. The kid was running around with his arms flailing. He wasn't reaching for anything... so no reason to do so.

NJReds
05-04-2010, 01:46 PM
Yeah. Do the right thing.

Yeah. Stay in the stands and don't run on the field. That'll guarantee that nobody gets tackled, tazed, handcuffed or beat up.

Cedric
05-04-2010, 01:47 PM
Yeah. Stay in the stands and don't run on the field. That'll guarantee that nobody gets tackled, tazed, handcuffed or beat up.

Excuse making for "kids" is getting over the top, IMO. The guy is 17 years old. He knows right from wrong or he needs an IQ test.

Brutus
05-04-2010, 01:47 PM
Excuse making for "kids" is getting over the top, IMO. The guy is 17 years old. He knows right from wrong or he needs an IQ test.

This is the equivalent of toilet papering someone's house.

It's seriously on that level.

Edit: Also, no one is excusing this. No one is saying he shouldn't get in trouble. But there's a big difference between facing legal repercussions for his poor judgment and getting stunned with a weapon that has been potentially dangerous.

kaldaniels
05-04-2010, 01:50 PM
This is the equivalent of toilet papering someone's house.

It's seriously on that level.

Monica Seles disagrees. Serously I understand your concern but that comparison is ludicrous.

Chip R
05-04-2010, 01:51 PM
Using a weapon on an unarmed kid (or even adult for that matter) that has, at least in several documented cases, caused death, should by everyone's definition be excessive.

No weapon? Not wanted for a violent crime? Not a likely threat of physical harm? Really not seeing any reasons to discharge a weapon on him or inflict bodily pain. Anything in this case beyond catching him, throwing him to the ground and cuffing him seems excessive.

I've never been stunned, so I can't say how much it hurts. But since there have been dozens of reported cases of the device causing serious injury or death, I would say it better be used in the utmost necessary circumstances.

Poor judgement by this kid (emphasis on kid) but even worse judgment by the officer. This is unfortunately becoming too common.

How was the cop to know he was unarmed? That's a question cops have to ask themselves all the time. A lot of the time they have to make a split second decision whether to use their weapon or not. In some cases it's a matter of life and death. Before they had tasers, a cop could shoot someone. But when that happens, there's a good chance the suspect could be killed. So now they have tasers. It's a non-lethal way to subdue a suspect without causing him bodily harm.

You say there are instances of tasers being lethal. I've heard of that too but that seems to be the exception rather than the rule. Just like you believe the Gamboa incident was the exception rather than the rule.

Brutus
05-04-2010, 01:53 PM
Monica Seles disagrees. Serously I understand your concern but that comparison is ludicrous.

But again, this kid wasn't armed. He didn't have a weapon. He wasn't out to inflict harm on anyone. He essentially trespassed on someone's property. That very much is the equivalent in seriousness of toilet papering a house.

There's a difference between someone going to attack another person and someone just running around. Cops are trained to make split second decisions. If you see someone has a weapon or is reaching for one, then by all means, you draw your own firearm or taser and do what you feel is necessary for the situation. But that wasn't the case here and there was really no reason to think otherwise.

kaldaniels
05-04-2010, 01:55 PM
But again, this kid wasn't armed. He didn't have a weapon. He wasn't out to inflict harm on anyone. He essentially trespassed on someone's property. That very much is the equivalent in seriousness of toilet papering a house.

There's a difference between someone going to attack another person and someone just running around. Cops are trained to make split second decisions. If you see someone has a weapon or is reaching for one, then by all means, you draw your own firearm or taser and do what you feel is necessary for the situation. But that wasn't the case here and there was really no reason to think otherwise.

What if Obama was on the pitchers mound when this happened?

Brutus
05-04-2010, 01:57 PM
What if Obama was on the pitchers mound when this happened?

He wasn't. So what's the point?

kaldaniels
05-04-2010, 01:59 PM
He wasn't. So what's the point?

What if the kid ran out in the outfield while Obama was throwing out the first pitch...you still say don't tase him?

Brutus
05-04-2010, 02:03 PM
How was the cop to know he was unarmed? That's a question cops have to ask themselves all the time. A lot of the time they have to make a split second decision whether to use their weapon or not. In some cases it's a matter of life and death. Before they had tasers, a cop could shoot someone. But when that happens, there's a good chance the suspect could be killed. So now they have tasers. It's a non-lethal way to subdue a suspect without causing him bodily harm.

You say there are instances of tasers being lethal. I've heard of that too but that seems to be the exception rather than the rule. Just like you believe the Gamboa incident was the exception rather than the rule.

I believe in due process. You're right that it is the exception, but it's still potentially dangerous.

But in the ideals of due process, if you go around discharging a weapon at every non-violent criminal who "could" have a weapon, you start setting an awfully bad precedent in this country and due process may as well go out the window.

Cops do have an awfully tough job when put in these situations. But every cop knows they're supposed to use restraint when determining to take physical action. I just can't believe chasing around a kid gave that cop the belief there was imminent danger. It sure seems like he simply took the lazy way out.

kaldaniels
05-04-2010, 02:04 PM
It's been shown that fans who cross the clearly demarcated crowd/celebrity barrier at events are capable of doing crazy things. See Dimebag Darrell. When a loon crosses the barrier, take them out. And a taser does a nice job of it.

Plus Plus
05-04-2010, 02:04 PM
But again, this kid wasn't armed. He didn't have a weapon. He wasn't out to inflict harm on anyone. He essentially trespassed on someone's property. That very much is the equivalent in seriousness of toilet papering a house.

There's a difference between someone going to attack another person and someone just running around. Cops are trained to make split second decisions. If you see someone has a weapon or is reaching for one, then by all means, you draw your own firearm or taser and do what you feel is necessary for the situation. But that wasn't the case here and there was really no reason to think otherwise.

From everything that I can gather, criminal trespassing is qualified by entering a secured premises without the knowledge of the people in charge of the premises, and with a secured premises being an area that would not be entered without the knowledge of the person entering. So, this is more akin to walking into somebody's house because they left the front door ajar than it is toilet papering. I can say with full confidence that if I came home to a stranger sitting in my living room I would take every measure necessary to get him or her out, and I would not check to see if they were armed first.

Brutus
05-04-2010, 02:10 PM
What if the kid ran out in the outfield while Obama was throwing out the first pitch...you still say don't tase him?

He wouldn't have ever got that far. He would have been tackled before the first step. However, those circumstances in a what-if world are still irrelevant to what actually happened here.

TheNext44
05-04-2010, 02:11 PM
What if the kid ran out in the outfield while Obama was throwing out the first pitch...you still say don't tase him?

Ever been a an event where a President, or even any Federal Official was in attendance? No way that kid gets to the hot dog stand without someone noticing if Obama was anywhere in the stadium.

I once accidentally walked near a Clinton speech in Washington, Ohio, and was stopped by a secret service guy because I was carrying a newspaper. He asked me if he could look at to check the Mets score, took the paper, felt nothing in it and gave it back to me without opening it, then told me to turn around. And I never got within 200 yards of the President.

If that kid ran out when the President was on the field, he'd be dead before he got his second foot on the field. One shot.

kaldaniels
05-04-2010, 02:14 PM
He wouldn't have ever got that far. He would have been tackled before the first step. However, those circumstances in a what-if world are still irrelevant to what actually happened here.

So it would be ok then, right?

redsmetz
05-04-2010, 02:15 PM
What if the kid ran out in the outfield while Obama was throwing out the first pitch...you still say don't tase him?

Security is different when a president is at a game. That's just common knowledge. For heaven's sake, there were sharpshooters on the roof of GABP when Bush came. I don't know if Obama has that or not. But that's not the point.

Since Gamboa was attacked in '02, there have problem been at least a couple of dozen people who have stupidly gone on to a baseball field during a game. The capture rate on these folks is 100%, a greater percentage than bank robbers, a crime with significantly high capture and conviction rates (I'm not equating, I'm just noting that no one has ever run on a field and gotten away). From the video, the kid, as Brutus noted, was flailing his arms. Had he made some dangerous move (reaching for his pocket), then probably the Taser would have been warranted. Glancing at Cincinnati's Use of Force policy, the language may have permitted its use, but it would have been very borderline, IMO.

While considered non-lethal, the Taser still carries risk, particularly in the chaotic pursuit that was taking place. My guess is Philadelphia and the Phillies come down on it generally being an excessive use. Again, as Brutus noted, this isn't to condone the stupid and illegal action of the teenager.

Just a note, I went back and read a story about this on NPR. The police chief is indicating that the action seems to be within their policy procedure, but still both the force and the team are reviewing the situation.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126503738

TheNext44
05-04-2010, 02:17 PM
How was the cop to know he was unarmed? That's a question cops have to ask themselves all the time. A lot of the time they have to make a split second decision whether to use their weapon or not. In some cases it's a matter of life and death. Before they had tasers, a cop could shoot someone. But when that happens, there's a good chance the suspect could be killed. So now they have tasers. It's a non-lethal way to subdue a suspect without causing him bodily harm.

You say there are instances of tasers being lethal. I've heard of that too but that seems to be the exception rather than the rule. Just like you believe the Gamboa incident was the exception rather than the rule.

Cops are forced to make serious decisions with life and death consequences everyday. This wasn't one of them.

Do you seriously think that shooting this guy with a gun was the other option this officer had, but he chose to taser him instead?

The officer just didn't want to run him down.

Buckeye33
05-04-2010, 02:18 PM
http://i661.photobucket.com/albums/uu339/rwasson4/ept_sports_mlb_experts-884660126-12.jpg?t=1272991313

kaldaniels
05-04-2010, 02:18 PM
Heres the point. This and toliet papering aint the same. Not even close.

Chip R
05-04-2010, 02:19 PM
I believe in due process. You're right that it is the exception, but it's still potentially dangerous.

But in the ideals of due process, if you go around discharging a weapon at every non-violent criminal who "could" have a weapon, you start setting an awfully bad precedent in this country and due process may as well go out the window.

Cops do have an awfully tough job when put in these situations. But every cop knows they're supposed to use restraint when determining to take physical action. I just can't believe chasing around a kid gave that cop the belief there was imminent danger. It sure seems like he simply took the lazy way out.


Well, the police are investigating this so this cop who tazed this guy is getting his due process and this guy will have his due process in court.

Again, you may not think this "kid" was non violent but he could have been. What if he had decided to kick one of the players? Or punch them? We all know that just because you don't have a weapon on your person doesn't mean you can't be dangerous. He may have been a diversion for another person to come out of the stands and attack a player or coach or umpire. While all the cops and security's attention is fixed on the first guy, the second guy comes out and does his thing.

Now let's say that this cop caught this guy and tackled him but he broke his leg or harmed him in some way. Is that excessive force too?

Brutus
05-04-2010, 02:19 PM
From everything that I can gather, criminal trespassing is qualified by entering a secured premises without the knowledge of the people in charge of the premises, and with a secured premises being an area that would not be entered without the knowledge of the person entering. So, this is more akin to walking into somebody's house because they left the front door ajar than it is toilet papering. I can say with full confidence that if I came home to a stranger sitting in my living room I would take every measure necessary to get him or her out, and I would not check to see if they were armed first.

I don't know what the exact statute is for criminal trespassing, so perhaps it's something different. But this was still running around on someone's property. I'm sure you'd agree that you might treat things a lot differently with someone on your property versus actually coming inside your home.

At the end of the day, we're talking about a kid who wanted to run around on a baseball field. His intentions were as pure as it is to go on someone's property and toilet paper a house - just having juvenile fun. We've all done it and I'm amazed at the number of old fogies these days that forget they've done it too.

And once again before anyone misconstrues my last comment: I'm not suggesting he not be punished. But I have a hard time believing, considering that dozens of people do this in major league stadiums each year without incident, a cop truly thought this kid was a danger to people around him.

Falls City Beer
05-04-2010, 02:21 PM
I think fans should be able to taze ineffective pitchers.

Brutus
05-04-2010, 02:21 PM
So it would be ok then, right?

No.

But we're still not talking about that. We're examining the situation based on what did happen not what could have happened.

Brutus
05-04-2010, 02:24 PM
Well, the police are investigating this so this cop who tazed this guy is getting his due process and this guy will have his due process in court.

Again, you may not think this "kid" was non violent but he could have been. What if he had decided to kick one of the players? Or punch them? We all know that just because you don't have a weapon on your person doesn't mean you can't be dangerous. He may have been a diversion for another person to come out of the stands and attack a player or coach or umpire. While all the cops and security's attention is fixed on the first guy, the second guy comes out and does his thing.

Now let's say that this cop caught this guy and tackled him but he broke his leg or harmed him in some way. Is that excessive force too?

Every single person you pass on the street could be dangerous. Everyone you pass could have a gun. They could do bodily harm. That doesnt mean you go discharging weapons at everyone.

To answer your question, if the cop is chasing someone and tackles him, and that alone causes an injury - I don't consider that excessive force. If you ask someone to stop running and they don't, and you have to tackle them to get them down and cooperate, I consider that within reason.

Cedric
05-04-2010, 02:28 PM
Every single person you pass on the street could be dangerous. Everyone you pass could have a gun. They could do bodily harm. That doesnt mean you go discharging weapons at everyone.

To answer your question, if the cop is chasing someone and tackles him, and that alone causes an injury - I don't consider that excessive force. If you ask someone to stop running and they don't, and you have to tackle them to get them down and cooperate, I consider that within reason.

Most people you pass on the street aren't actively committing a crime.

Bumstead
05-04-2010, 02:30 PM
What if Obama was on the pitchers mound when this happened?

hmmm...let the kid go and see how it turns out...:p:

Just kidding...:eek:

Chip R
05-04-2010, 02:30 PM
Every single person you pass on the street could be dangerous. Everyone you pass could have a gun. They could do bodily harm. That doesnt mean you go discharging weapons at everyone.

That's because there are laws against that.


To answer your question, if the cop is chasing someone and tackles him, and that alone causes an injury - I don't consider that excessive force. If you ask someone to stop running and they don't, and you have to tackle them to get them down and cooperate, I consider that within reason.

But there are people that would consider that excessive force. They could say, "Well, why did you have to tackle this guy? Why couldn't have you just grabbed him and subdued him?" Or, "Why didn't you just taze the guy?" If a cop harms a suspect when subduing him - like breaking a limb - the suspect could sue for excessive force.

Brutus
05-04-2010, 02:32 PM
Most people you pass on the street aren't actively committing a crime.

Non-violent crime.

You know, there is that distinction that should be made. The point was intentionally exaggerated to remind people that not all crimes are committed equal. Excessive force is not necessary on every criminal - especially ones that show no signs of being armed and are teenagers and wanted for nothing more than trespassing on someone's property.

Roy Tucker
05-04-2010, 02:34 PM
This says criminal tresspass and obstructing official business for running on the field at GABP.

http://www.wcpo.com/news/local/story/Rain-Delay-Antics-Land-Pair-In-Hot-Water/_MpRGeHCAUeINa3Rjq5-RA.cspx

As much as it gives me great satisfaction to read about those Phillie morons getting tazed, it probably is a little too much force.

But I don't agree with the toilet papering analogy. If I walk across my neighbor's yard, I don't get charged with criminal trespass. But if I set foot on the field at GABP, I'm in immediate hot water.

Falls City Beer
05-04-2010, 02:36 PM
It doesn't pass the smell test--I believe it's excessive. I think tackling him (seriously, where is the guy going to go once he's on the field?) is probably, if nothing else, the safer method from a legal standpoint.

It's not just that tazering is extremely painful (it is, from what I understand), it's also that it can cause pretty serious lesions and potential nerve damage.

Brutus
05-04-2010, 02:37 PM
That's because there are laws against that.



But there are people that would consider that excessive force. They could say, "Well, why did you have to tackle this guy? Why couldn't have you just grabbed him and subdued him?" Or, "Why didn't you just taze the guy?" If a cop harms a suspect when subduing him - like breaking a limb - the suspect could sue for excessive force.

For me, the distinction is that if you tackle someone, they may break a bone or two. Bones heal. I've never had a problem with tackling someone in a chase, under those circumstances, provided they don't rough the individual up once they have them pinned. That's where it gets excessive for me.

Using a weapon that could cause death is a much more serious issue. Death doesn't heal.

Chip R
05-04-2010, 02:41 PM
Non-violent crime.

You know, there is that distinction that should be made. The point was intentionally exaggerated to remind people that not all crimes are committed equal. Excessive force is not necessary on every criminal - especially ones that show no signs of being armed and are teenagers and wanted for nothing more than trespassing on someone's property.

But you don't know if it's non-violent. If I trespass on your property, I may be doing it unintentionally but I may be going there to do you and yours bodily harm. How do you know what my intentions are? You may not see the gun I have tucked in my belt behind my back so you assume I'm unarmed. Even if I pull it out, I may not be intending to use it. I may just want to show you what a nice looking gun I have.

Just because this guy was 17 years old, doesn't make him any less dangerous. One of the guys who attacked Tom Gamboa was 15. Was he trying to harm anyone? Probably not but, again, you can't know for sure. He was carrying some kind of towel. What if there was a weapon under that towel?

Brutus
05-04-2010, 02:42 PM
This says criminal tresspass and obstructing official business for running on the field at GABP.

http://www.wcpo.com/news/local/story/Rain-Delay-Antics-Land-Pair-In-Hot-Water/_MpRGeHCAUeINa3Rjq5-RA.cspx

But I don't agree with the toilet papering analogy. If I walk across my neighbor's yard, I don't get charged with criminal trespass. But if I set foot on the field at GABP, I'm in immediate hot water.

You could be cited for criminal trespassing if you're caught tp'ing though. The only reason most people aren't is because we realize it's kids being kids (well that and there aren't 30,000 witnesses, including security guards, to see you do it).

My point about the toilet papering, though, was more about the intent of the kid. It is pretty much akin to a kid wanting the rush and thrill of doing something exciting and something they know is technically against the law, but not a real big deal.

Brutus
05-04-2010, 02:45 PM
But you don't know if it's non-violent. If I trespass on your property, I may be doing it unintentionally but I may be going there to do you and yours bodily harm. How do you know what my intentions are? You may not see the gun I have tucked in my belt behind my back so you assume I'm unarmed. Even if I pull it out, I may not be intending to use it. I may just want to show you what a nice looking gun I have.

Just because this guy was 17 years old, doesn't make him any less dangerous. One of the guys who attacked Tom Gamboa was 15. Was he trying to harm anyone? Probably not but, again, you can't know for sure. He was carrying some kind of towel. What if there was a weapon under that towel?

That doesn't excuse it.

If he reaches for this weapon that could, in theory, be there. Fine. If he is known to have a weapon. Great. If a suspect is wanted for other alleged crimes that were violent, even better.

But this meets none of the above. The cops know this and are trained to make those distinctions. Despite that, the cop used the weapon anyhow.

This is not justified.

KoryMac5
05-04-2010, 02:45 PM
After seeing the video I felt it was excessive as well. The officer more than likely was frustrated with the situation as the perp would not stop after repeated warnings. Being out of shape and wanting to save face he tazed him. With other folks on the field getting ready to tackle him the officer should have sided with caution in this. It may have taken a few seconds longer but it woukd have been the smarter thing to do.

Hindsight is always 20/20 and hopefully this officer learns from this. Hopefully the entire dept learns from it for that matter.

durl
05-04-2010, 02:46 PM
http://i661.photobucket.com/albums/uu339/rwasson4/ept_sports_mlb_experts-884660126-12.jpg?t=1272991313

How was security to know that there wasn't a weapon hidden by the towel the kid was carrying?

Brutus
05-04-2010, 02:52 PM
Check out this link and look at these three videos, the third of which shows he was actually running around in circles waiving his towel.

http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/sports/Phillies-Fan-Tased-for-Rushing-Field-92739934.html

Can anyone truly say with a straight face this kid seemed like a threat to anyone?

The thing is, he was actually already surrounded by security and running in away from the nearest ballplayers and in circles. There was absolutely no reason to tase him at that point. Nothing more than a cop who took the lazy way out.

TheNext44
05-04-2010, 02:53 PM
But you don't know if it's non-violent. If I trespass on your property, I may be doing it unintentionally but I may be going there to do you and yours bodily harm. How do you know what my intentions are? You may not see the gun I have tucked in my belt behind my back so you assume I'm unarmed. Even if I pull it out, I may not be intending to use it. I may just want to show you what a nice looking gun I have.

Just because this guy was 17 years old, doesn't make him any less dangerous. One of the guys who attacked Tom Gamboa was 15. Was he trying to harm anyone? Probably not but, again, you can't know for sure. He was carrying some kind of towel. What if there was a weapon under that towel?

Watch the video. The kid was clearly non-violent, and wasn't near anyone or thing he could harm when he was tasered.

To your other point, I have no problem with using "excessive force" to take down an idiot who runs onto the field. Gang tackle him, break his arm, whatever, he deserve it.

But tasering is just another issue. It's too dangerous, risks death and should only be used in true life threatening situations. If the guy running was going after a player or coach, or looked like he was pulling a weapon out, then taser him. But this guys was clearly just a drunken idiot making a fool of himself.

Mario-Rijo
05-04-2010, 02:57 PM
Cops are forced to make serious decisions with life and death consequences everyday. This wasn't one of them.

Do you seriously think that shooting this guy with a gun was the other option this officer had, but he chose to taser him instead?

The officer just didn't want to run him down.

#1 He couldn't be sure this kid wasn't up to no good, sure he could assume but you just don't assume anything when it's your responsibility to protect. Assumptions can get people hurt.

#2 He couldn't catch the kid to make sure he protected whom he was responsible for.

#3 I've been tazed, have to in law enforcement in order to use one yourself and for that reason law enforcement guys typically don't use them all willy nilly, like most believe. And BTW it's no big deal, yes it takes control of your body for however long the guy keeps the trigger pulled and yes it's like a freight train running thru your body for that time (or a giant sledge hammer giving you the bugs bunny treatment) but in my experience once the trigger is let go there are no side effects, it's over, no pain no nothing. In my personal opinion pepper spray is more life threatening.

This kid wasn't harmed and until those studies prove without a doubt they are lethal I don't buy it.

Falls City Beer
05-04-2010, 02:58 PM
#1 He couldn't be sure this kid wasn't up to no good, sure he could assume but you just don't assume anything when it's your responsibility to protect.

#2 He couldn't catch the kid to make sure he protected whom he was responsible for.

#3 I've been tazed, have to in law enforcement in order to use one yourself and for that reason law enforcement guys typically don't use them all willy nilly, like most believe. And BTW it's no big deal, yes it takes control of your body for however long the guy keeps the trigger pulled and yes it's like a freight train running thru your body for that time (or a giant sledge hammer giving you the bugs bunny treatment) but in my experience once the trigger is let go there are no side effects, it's over, no pain no nothing. In my personal opinion pepper spray is more life threatening.

This kid wasn't harmed and until those studies prove without a doubt they are lethal I don't buy it.

To me they don't need to prove lethality for it to be excessive. Lots of really excessive stuff doesn't kill you.

Brutus
05-04-2010, 03:03 PM
#3 I've been tazed, have to in law enforcement in order to use one yourself and for that reason law enforcement guys typically don't use them all willy nilly, like most believe. And BTW it's no big deal, yes it takes control of your body for however long the guy keeps the trigger pulled and yes it's like a freight train running thru your body for that time (or a giant sledge hammer giving you the bugs bunny treatment) but in my experience once the trigger is let go there are no side effects, it's over, no pain no nothing. In my personal opinion pepper spray is more life threatening.

This kid wasn't harmed and until those studies prove without a doubt they are lethal I don't buy it.

Tell that to the families of loved ones that died in documented cases where they were tased.

I've never been tased so I can't speak to what it feels like. But since there have been people to die from it, I would say it potentially could be a very big deal.

I've read studies that deaths related from the device has potentially reached into the hundreds worldwide. It's actually illegal in some countries because of incidents relating to it.

Longterm affects are inconclusive on it, but that's probably even more reason not to use it except as a last resort (or second to last with lethal force being the other).

Falls City Beer
05-04-2010, 03:11 PM
Honestly, maybe more to the point, why not have several other safety officers converge on the guy and tackle him? No court would ever in a million years punish a cop for tackling someone (even if he broke his arm), as it's been the gold standard for dealing with drunk idiots for forever.

To quote The Exorcist: "Much too vulgar display of power, Karras."

Chip R
05-04-2010, 03:18 PM
To your other point, I have no problem with using "excessive force" to take down an idiot who runs onto the field. Gang tackle him, break his arm, whatever, he deserve it.

But tasering is just another issue. It's too dangerous, risks death and should only be used in true life threatening situations. If the guy running was going after a player or coach, or looked like he was pulling a weapon out, then taser him. But this guys was clearly just a drunken idiot making a fool of himself.


Let's say that you tackle a suspect and for some reason, because of the harm that was done to him, the suspect dies. Could be a heart attack, stroke, concussion, blow to the head, etc. Since you believe that the use of tasers involve the rare exceptions of death and serious injuries, then you should also believe that a suspect shouldn't be physically restrained because of that exception that he could be killed from being physically restrained.

In this case, this guy was harmless. He's probably over at Paddy's right now bragging about getting tazed to Frank, Charlie, Dennis, Rob and Dee. He may have even won a bet. I'm not going to say cops should taze someone who runs out on a field but I'm not going to condemn them if they do.

Philly crowds have a well deserved reputation for being, at the least, rowdy and at the worst, violent. You think the Phillies' organization and their security enjoy this rep? They are probably telling these cops that if they feel the use of non-lethal force on these trespassers could act as a deterrent to these people, then by all means use it.

IowaRed
05-04-2010, 03:31 PM
I don't see the threat of a taser being much of a deterrent. No, I have never been tased but the majority of the people running on to fields are testosterone and alcohol fueled and are not thinking sensibly-obviously.

Bumstead
05-04-2010, 04:14 PM
Entertaining debate...you have an out-of-shape Security/Cop Officer that can't catch a kid that is just screwing around is clearly no threat to anyone on the field. So what does he do? He tasers the kid just because he can't catch him...It's clearly excessive and it's dangerous on the Security guys part. Fire that guy and hire guys that don't make bad decisions to make the organization look bad...What if he didn't have a taser? Would he have shot the kid? C'mon...

_Sir_Charles_
05-04-2010, 04:57 PM
I don't see the threat of a taser being much of a deterrent. No, I have never been tased but the majority of the people running on to fields are testosterone and alcohol fueled and are not thinking sensibly-obviously.

Bingo. I'm sure it bothered some people to see it. But I doubt the guy will even remember it. Much ado about nothing IMO. If it hadn't happened in front of a huge audience (non-Reds game...I'll assume there was a decent crowd) there wouldn't be much of a fuss IMO. But from a PR standpoint, they're probably better off just gang tackling him. No amount of reasoning/threats will make drunk idiots behave.

durl
05-04-2010, 04:59 PM
Bingo. I'm sure it bothered some people to see it. But I doubt the guy will even remember it. Much ado about nothing IMO. If it hadn't happened in front of a huge audience (non-Reds game...I'll assume there was a decent crowd) there wouldn't be much of a fuss IMO. But from a PR standpoint, they're probably better off just gang tackling him. No amount of reasoning/threats will make drunk idiots behave.

If this 17-year old kid was drunk at the ballpark, the Phillies organization has a more pressing problem than their security detail tazing people that run onto the field, IMO.

_Sir_Charles_
05-04-2010, 05:03 PM
If this 17-year old kid was drunk at the ballpark, the Phillies organization has a more pressing problem than their security detail tazing people that run onto the field, IMO.

Didn't read the article...only saw a bit of the video. Didn't know the kid was 17. But my point still stands. No amount of deterrence will stop a drunk or an idiot when they really want to do something. (Kid seems to fit into the second catagory of "idiot")

CTA513
05-04-2010, 05:04 PM
He probably learned his lesson while at the same time showing other people in the stands a good reason not to run on the field.

Bumstead
05-04-2010, 05:09 PM
Didn't read the article...only saw a bit of the video. Didn't know the kid was 17. But my point still stands. No amount of deterrence will stop a drunk or an idiot when they really want to do something. (Kid seems to fit into the second catagory of "idiot")

Or maybe he's just a kid that made a bad decision (probably not the first kid to do so)? Taser him...ridiculous. He should do the time for the crime but to be tasered is over the line in my opinion.

Bum

_Sir_Charles_
05-04-2010, 05:14 PM
Or maybe he's just a kid that made a bad decision (probably not the first kid to do so)? Taser him...ridiculous. He should do the time for the crime but to be tasered is over the line in my opinion.

Bum

I'm not defending the security guards actions. They definitely would've been better served to gang tackle him. But when a cop/security guard tells you to halt...you do it. 17 is certainly under age so I'd hope alcohol isn't in the equation, but he's still old enough to know that the outcome won't be pleasant.

Tasering...over-reacting? Probably. But people think it's much worse than it is. (and yes, I've been tasered...brother-in-law is a cop...I punched him afterwards) You can't control yourself and you drop, but once it's over...it's over.

Roy Tucker
05-04-2010, 05:26 PM
I think its over the line too, but not that far.

Everyone is saying he clearly wasn't a threat. I don't think its so clear. Anyone in their right mind is *not* going to run on a MLB ballfield during a game. Anyone in their right mind *knows* they are going to get caught and hauled off to the hoosegow, charged, and most likely spend the night with the underbelly of society. You have to be seriously under the influence or have some other screw loose to willingly step foot into those circumstances. If I were a cop and seeing a yahoo run loose on the field, I wouldn't be so hasty to say "aww, he's jest out havin' himself a fun run". *If* the yahoo does something nefarious, the public will be all over that cop saying "why didn't he do something more?".

Get off my ballfield.

StillFunkyB
05-04-2010, 06:04 PM
I honestly feel that the biggest problem is that this is even an issue at all.

The person broke the law, he got tazed.

He's most likely in much better shape after being tazed than had he gotten speared by a security guard.

Wish the cops would have had tazers when those guys jumped the coach in Chicago.

Mario-Rijo
05-04-2010, 06:37 PM
To me they don't need to prove lethality for it to be excessive. Lots of really excessive stuff doesn't kill you.

It's a device used to gain control of someone (freezes up your nervous system momentarily so you can't move) not to hurt them so I just don't see the issue with using it. I've seen plenty of cases of it and the only time I ever saw anyone hurt by it was guy who was tazed while he was trying to elude an officer in gravel, the officer tazes him and he goes sliding thru the gravel gaining a little road rash on his face, chest. Yeah it's a bit painful while in use but it's one of those kind of pains that is also a bit invigorating (and I ain't one to enjoy pain).

Unassisted
05-04-2010, 06:53 PM
The thing I think about in this story is what the kid's dad must have been thinking as he watched the cop take aim at his kid. If I was the dad, I think I'd take my time posting the kid's bail.

Chip R
05-04-2010, 07:10 PM
The thing I think about in this story is what the kid's dad must have been thinking as he watched the cop take aim at his kid. If I was the dad, I think I'd take my time posting the kid's bail.

I heard he called his dad before he did it and asked him if he should do it. His dad said he didn't think it was a good idea but to go ahead if he wanted to.

StillFunkyB
05-04-2010, 09:49 PM
I heard he called his dad before he did it and asked him if he should do it. His dad said he didn't think it was a good idea but to go ahead if he wanted to.

Awesome.

CrackerJack
05-04-2010, 10:01 PM
Since Ohioan Kevin Piskura’s tasering and death on April 25th, in North America alone, 6 9 10 11 14 20 27 (updated August 12th), more people have died after being tasered:

340. April 24, 2008: Kevin Piskura, 24, Cincinnati, Ohio
341. April 24, 2008: Dewayne Chatt, 39, Memphis, Tennessee
342. April 27, 2008: Paul Thompson, 24, Greensboro, North Carolina
343. April 28, 2008: Jermaine Ward, 28, Jackson, Tennessee
344. May 4, 2008: Joe Kubat, 21, St. Paul, Minnesota
345. May 6, 2008: James S. Wilson, 22, Alton, Missouri
346. May 28, 2008: Ricardo Manuel Abrahams, 44, Woodland, California
347. May 31, 2008: Robert Ingram, 27, Raceland, Louisiana
348. June 5, 2008: Willie Maye, 43, Birmingham, Alabama
349. June 6, 2008: Donovan Graham, 39, Meriden, Connecticut
350. June 8, 2008: Quintrell T. Brannon, 25, Vincennes, Indiana
351. June 9, 2008: Tony Curtis Bradway, 26, Brooklyn, New York
352. June 23, 2008: Jeffrey Marreel, 36, Norfolk, Ontario
353. June 24, 2008: Ernest Graves, 26, Rockford, Illinois
354. June 27, 2008: Nicholas Cody, 27, Dothan, Alabama
355. July 2, 2008: Isaac Bass, 34, Louisville, Kentucky
356. July 4, 2008: Othello Pierre, 23, Baton Rouge, Louisiana
357. July 8, 2008: Samuel DeBoise, 29, St. Louis, Missouri
358. July 8, 2008: Carlos Vargas, 42, San Bernardino, California
359. July 14, 2008: Marion Wilson Jr., 52, Houston, Texas
360. July 14, 2008: Deshoun Keyon Torrence, 18, Long Beach, California
361. July 22, 2008: Michael Langan, 17, Winnipeg, Manitoba
362. July 23, 2008: Richard Smith, 46, Dallas, Texas
363. July 26, 2008: Anthony Davidson, Statesville, 29, North Carolina
364. August 4, 2008: Jerry Jones, 45, Beaumont, Texas
365. August 4, 2008: Andre Thomas, 37, Swissvale, Pennsylvania
366. August 2, 2008: Lawrence Rosenthal, 54, Hemet, California
367. August 10, 2008: Kiethedric Hines, 31, Rockford, Illinois

Plus Plus
05-04-2010, 10:18 PM
Colin Cowherd of ESPN radio threw three facts about taser use out during his program today:

1- any law enforcement officer who has a taser has to first be tased himself or herself
2- serious injury rate for tasers is 0.6%
3- since tasers started to be used widely, police-on-criminal death rate has decreased by 25%, as before tasers the weapons used to subdue criminals were billy clubs or fists

I am quite confident that the death rate for tasers is right in line with the death rate for tackling or slamming into the ground, or whatever the alternative may be.

Brutus
05-04-2010, 10:27 PM
Colin Cowherd of ESPN radio threw three facts about taser use out during his program today:

1- any law enforcement officer who has a taser has to first be tased himself or herself
2- serious injury rate for tasers is 0.6%
3- since tasers started to be used widely, police-on-criminal death rate has decreased by 25%, as before tasers the weapons used to subdue criminals were billy clubs or fists

I am quite confident that the death rate for tasers is right in line with the death rate for tackling or slamming into the ground, or whatever the alternative may be.

You think that nearly 1 in every 100 people getting tackled are seriously injured or killed? Really?

OnBaseMachine
05-04-2010, 10:29 PM
FWIW, another idiot ran onto the field in Philadelphia tonight in the 9th inning but he gave himself up without incident.

Plus Plus
05-04-2010, 10:54 PM
You think that nearly 1 in every 100 people getting tackled are seriously injured or killed? Really?

I think that about 1 in every 200 people who are fleeing from police and get body slammed into the ground or apprehended with a billy club, pepper spray, or what have you are seriously injured or killed, sure.

CrackerJack
05-05-2010, 12:01 AM
I think that about 1 in every 200 people who are fleeing from police and get body slammed into the ground or apprehended with a billy club, pepper spray, or what have you are seriously injured or killed, sure.


But never in a "stupid kid runs onto the field" situation. It's never been needed in the past, why now? It was excessive.

guttle11
05-05-2010, 01:41 AM
But tasering is just another issue. It's too dangerous, risks death and should only be used in true life threatening situations. If the guy running was going after a player or coach, or looked like he was pulling a weapon out, then taser him. But this guys was clearly just a drunken idiot making a fool of himself.

The "worst case scenario" can be, um, worse with a taser, but overall the risk of injury is lower than that of a simple tackle. Keep in ming we're not just talking about the suspect, but the cops, security and bystanders. And the overwhelming majority of serious injuries (or worse) from the use of a taser involve the misuse of the taser itself (something that doesn't appear to be the case here, it was one charge) or due to a reaction with drugs in the system (there's no time to ponder that, and it's certainly not the responsibility of the cops). You also have mental issues, falling, and stuff that surrounds being subdued by several people at the same time that don't go away when no taser is used. Not all injuries and deaths after the use of a taser are actually caused by the taser charge. Simply bringing up the risk of injuries and deaths after taseing doesn't hold water. There's risk in every possible outcome.

I've found that most of the anti-taser sentiment is due to simple fear. Fear clouds facts. Most people equate tasers to stun guns, and that's not the case. Stun guns often shoot 50,000 volts. The charge from a taser is often similar to the flash of a camera in bursts microseconds in duration. It's the small charge 15-19 times per second that basically locks your muscles in a charleyhorse and stops you in your tracks. If used correctly it can be over in 5 seconds and won't even effect a pacemaker.

I don't know the exact statistic, but the safe and effective percentage for tasers is in the high 90s. A lot of times the prongs (barbs?) don't even touch the skin to leave a bruise, they get stuck in the clothes. Much higher percentage than any other kind of force. This wasn't a game of TV tag, it was going to take force to end this kid's "once in a lifetime" joy ride. There is a case to be made that the taser was the most safe option for all parties involved. Very small risk something bad could have happened to the kid, but there's also a small risk a cop/security guard could have been seriously injured tackling the kid. Me personally, I'm airing on the side that protects the people not breaking the law, all things equal.

dougdirt
05-05-2010, 02:31 AM
For those who are ok with tackling the kid, but think tasing him is excessive.... have you ever watched a game of football? Ever seen a guy get blind sided and how he lands? Now imagine that happening without any pads or a helmet. If that had happened, would it have been excessive? Would it have been more dangerous? More safe? What if he had broken his neck or suffered a brain injury when his head smashed into the ground because he got blind sided by the officer or a security guard? I have seen it brought up that people have died by taser.... sure. People have died being tackled too.

dougdirt
05-05-2010, 02:34 AM
But never in a "stupid kid runs onto the field" situation. It's never been needed in the past, why now? It was excessive.

But it has been needed in the past. Tom Gamboa. Monica Seles.

reds44
05-05-2010, 03:03 AM
But it has been needed in the past. Tom Gamboa. Monica Seles.
A taser would have done nothing in the Gamboa situation. Nobody had any idea what was going on, and by the time people figured it out when entire Royals team was beating the tar out of them.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IG8nYtDkkqE

At what point would a taser have come in handy?

I fully understand giving them tasers in case it was needed, but this was clearly some 17 year old kid attempting to have fun. Tasing him was excessive. Do you think anybody on the field saw this kid and thought "oh gee he looks dangerous."

No.

reds44
05-05-2010, 03:08 AM
Btw, when brawls breakout (on the field) should the officers have the right to break out the taser as well? Grown men fighting each other is must more of a reason to bust out the taser than a 17 year old running around like an idiot.

Ltlabner
05-05-2010, 06:49 AM
But again, this kid wasn't armed. He didn't have a weapon. He wasn't out to inflict harm on anyone. He essentially trespassed on someone's property. That very much is the equivalent in seriousness of toilet papering a house.

The problem with this Pollyanna view is that the security folks don't know that he's unarmed and just up to a prank until after the guy is tackled. You can't just tell by looking or age if someone is mentally unstable or has a weapon.

And he if whips out a gun or a knife and hurts someone then people will be pissing "why didn't they do something".

Fact remains that the kid put himself in that situation and no amount of excuse making for him changes that.

And for all the "couldn't they just tackle him" folks, had an in-shape, 220lbs muscle bound guard blindsided the kid and broke the kids arm/neck/leg in the process would that have somehow have been a "safer" outcome replacing the very tiny chance of a taser injury (that ultimately didn't happen) ? You have to be a fool to think that tackling someone doesn't involve risk too (and not only for the troublemaker).

dougdirt
05-05-2010, 11:38 AM
A taser would have done nothing in the Gamboa situation. Nobody had any idea what was going on, and by the time people figured it out when entire Royals team was beating the tar out of them.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IG8nYtDkkqE

At what point would a taser have come in handy?

I fully understand giving them tasers in case it was needed, but this was clearly some 17 year old kid attempting to have fun. Tasing him was excessive. Do you think anybody on the field saw this kid and thought "oh gee he looks dangerous."

No.

At the point when the guys crossed from stands to the field. The problem was that no one was in the right position. A Taser would have been great for the incident, had someone been in the right position. Lets not confuse the situation where it wouldn't have been useful and it couldn't have been useful.

And any time that someone is resisting arrest, a taser is useful.

edabbs44
05-05-2010, 12:30 PM
But never in a "stupid kid runs onto the field" situation. It's never been needed in the past, why now? It was excessive.

We never needed metal detectors in HS in the past. We never needed no-fly lists either. And we definitely never needed street vendors to keep an eye out for bomb filled SUVs.

This is a different world we are living in. All we'll need is one looney fan to go out and stab a player. Then things will change.

The kid is an idiot.

Brutus
05-05-2010, 12:34 PM
The problem with this Pollyanna view is that the security folks don't know that he's unarmed and just up to a prank until after the guy is tackled. You can't just tell by looking or age if someone is mentally unstable or has a weapon.

And he if whips out a gun or a knife and hurts someone then people will be pissing "why didn't they do something".

Fact remains that the kid put himself in that situation and no amount of excuse making for him changes that.

And for all the "couldn't they just tackle him" folks, had an in-shape, 220lbs muscle bound guard blindsided the kid and broke the kids arm/neck/leg in the process would that have somehow have been a "safer" outcome replacing the very tiny chance of a taser injury (that ultimately didn't happen) ? You have to be a fool to think that tackling someone doesn't involve risk too (and not only for the troublemaker).

He was running around in circles waiving his towel for 30 seconds and was running away from any ballplayer by the time he was tazed. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out he's not armed and not out to hurt anyone.

Roy Tucker
05-05-2010, 12:43 PM
He was running around in circles waiving his towel for 30 seconds and was running away from any ballplayer by the time he was tazed. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out he's not armed and not out to hurt anyone.

See, I just don't agree with this conclusion.

What if he did this in a city hall session? Through your kid's day care center? On the White House lawn? Would you be so trusting then?

kaldaniels
05-05-2010, 12:46 PM
For all those arguing with Brutus or trying to persuade him, let it go.

a) Brutus has already said if the President of the USA was on the field and such a fan made it past security, he would not be in favor of allowing the trespasser to be tased.

b) He has compared this fan someone toliet papering...nothing more.

I couldn't disagree with those 2 points stronger, but I know someone steadfast in their beliefs when I see them, and I respect that conviction.

Movin' on. :beerme:

RichRed
05-05-2010, 12:55 PM
He was running around in circles waiving his towel for 30 seconds and was running away from any ballplayer by the time he was tazed. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out he's not armed and not out to hurt anyone.

This assumes the guy being chased is thinking as rationally as you. If he's brazen enough to leap onto the field and run around, my opinion is that all bets are off when it comes to his ability to reason.

Ltlabner
05-05-2010, 01:23 PM
He was running around in circles waiving his towel for 30 seconds and was running away from any ballplayer by the time he was tazed. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out he's not armed and not out to hurt anyone.

You are also ignoring the fact that the NYC metro area just had a potential terror event unfold in Times Square within the week. If you don't think that fact is bouncing around the heads of security organizations in the general NYC area (and Philly aint that far from NYC) then you are simply living in the cloud world.

It's easy from the comfort of your computer to say "they should have asked nicely and said pretty please" when the fact remains that you simply can not read the minds of criminals. Is he likely a drunk frat kid being a bozo? Sure...but in today's world to pretend that all is well and people are all nice-nice is not overly wise. There's just as many plausible scenarios where Dork McGee's intentions aren't so innocent.

And you still ignore the fact that exactly no methods of restraining someone are without risk. Whether you taser, punch, tackle, trip, head-lock or dive from the third turnbuckle there is some risk the kid ends up hurt. And that risk extends to the cops/security folks too (which apparently doesn't bother you).

Ltlabner
05-05-2010, 01:24 PM
See, I just don't agree with this conclusion.

What if he did this in a city hall session? Through your kid's day care center? On the White House lawn? Would you be so trusting then?

This is different....this is a sporting event. Nothing bad has ever happened at a sporting event. (other than KC Royals coach, Monica Sellis, that little problem in Munich in '72, any number of World Cup events.........)

Falls City Beer
05-05-2010, 01:47 PM
I'm trying to understand in this discussion why a taser *had* to be used. I've still not gotten an answer as to why a tackle wasn't employed, as it has been on countless other occasions. What's the high-end of force that should be used in a situation like this, where the offender isn't brandishing a weapon? If he's really fast, and they can't catch him, should they be able to empty slugs into him?

Ltlabner
05-05-2010, 01:56 PM
I'm trying to understand in this discussion why a taser *had* to be used. I've still not gotten an answer as to why a tackle wasn't employed, as it has been on countless other occasions. What's the high-end of force that should be used in a situation like this, where the offender isn't brandishing a weapon? If he's really fast, and they can't catch him, should they be able to empty slugs into him?

I don't think anybody is arguing it *had* to be used. It's one tool available. It's a tool that does involve risk but again it's not as if tackling someone is entirely risk free either. To act as if tackling someone is risk free while using a taser is tantamount to shooting them is simply off base.

In this case (and this is wild speculation) it *appeared* that the cop and security guys tried to corral the kid and he simply out ran them. My guess is that to keep the situation from escalating and prevent this kid from running around for 10 minutes the cop made the decision, in the heat of the moment, to employ a different means of stopping the kid. In that sort of situation it's likely best to stop the situation now as the other alternative is to let the kid run around like a jerk until he passes out.

What's the high end of force that can be used? Depends on what that specific police force "use of force continuum" policy dictates. Police organizations use of force policies vary from department to department (sometimes wildly). Some jurisdictions have policies for everything down to pocket knives and flashlights while other departments basically only deal with fists and guns.

CTA513
05-05-2010, 01:57 PM
I'm trying to understand in this discussion why a taser *had* to be used. I've still not gotten an answer as to why a tackle wasn't employed, as it has been on countless other occasions. What's the high-end of force that should be used in a situation like this, where the offender isn't brandishing a weapon? If he's really fast, and they can't catch him, should they be able to empty slugs into him?

Why do that when they can just use a taser?

:D

NJReds
05-05-2010, 01:59 PM
I'm trying to understand in this discussion why a taser *had* to be used. I've still not gotten an answer as to why a tackle wasn't employed, as it has been on countless other occasions. What's the high-end of force that should be used in a situation like this, where the offender isn't brandishing a weapon? If he's really fast, and they can't catch him, should they be able to empty slugs into him?

Tackling could hurt the guy, too. Maybe they should let the guy run around until he's tired. Have a good laugh and escort him back to his seat.

edabbs44
05-05-2010, 02:00 PM
I'm trying to understand in this discussion why a taser *had* to be used. I've still not gotten an answer as to why a tackle wasn't employed, as it has been on countless other occasions. What's the high-end of force that should be used in a situation like this, where the offender isn't brandishing a weapon? If he's really fast, and they can't catch him, should they be able to empty slugs into him?

Maybe it will stop the next guy from being an idiot.

reds44
05-05-2010, 02:00 PM
This is different....this is a sporting event. Nothing bad has ever happened at a sporting event. (other than KC Royals coach, Monica Sellis, that little problem in Munich in '72, any number of World Cup events.........)
Refering to soccer as a sporting event is a ***** of a stretch. It's more like a riot with some boring activities going on down on the field.

CTA513
05-05-2010, 02:13 PM
Maybe it will stop the next guy from being an idiot.

Last night showed the world is full of idiots as another fan ran on the field even after that other idiot was tasered for it.

Phillies up 1-0 in the 9th inning and Hamels is trying to complete the shutout.
Idiot runs on the field and the game is stopped followed by Hamels looking pretty upset by the idiot causing the game to be stopped. The game resumes and Hamels gives up back to back doubles to make it a 1-1 game.

Falls City Beer
05-05-2010, 03:40 PM
I don't think anybody is arguing it *had* to be used. It's one tool available. It's a tool that does involve risk but again it's not as if tackling someone is entirely risk free either. To act as if tackling someone is risk free while using a taser is tantamount to shooting them is simply off base.

In this case (and this is wild speculation) it *appeared* that the cop and security guys tried to corral the kid and he simply out ran them. My guess is that to keep the situation from escalating and prevent this kid from running around for 10 minutes the cop made the decision, in the heat of the moment, to employ a different means of stopping the kid. In that sort of situation it's likely best to stop the situation now as the other alternative is to let the kid run around like a jerk until he passes out.

What's the high end of force that can be used? Depends on what that specific police force "use of force continuum" policy dictates. Police organizations use of force policies vary from department to department (sometimes wildly). Some jurisdictions have policies for everything down to pocket knives and flashlights while other departments basically only deal with fists and guns.


It seems to me that tackling would have taken care of it--and would not have resulted in the negative publicity and the potential legal action that might be taken by the fan or his family. Yes, tackling is potentially dangerous, but since it's been used so many times with no controversy, why mess with a good thing?

dougdirt
05-05-2010, 03:50 PM
It seems to me that tackling would have taken care of it--and would not have resulted in the negative publicity and the potential legal action that might be taken by the fan or his family. Yes, tackling is potentially dangerous, but since it's been used so many times with no controversy, why mess with a good thing?

Well it seems they tried that and it didn't work. So that is why you mess with a good thing.... because that good thing didn't work and this was a relatively safe way to get the job done.

Bumstead
05-05-2010, 04:03 PM
Maybe they shouldn't work security if they cannot maintain themselves physically capable of doing the job...the taser shouldn't be a crutch for not being in shape for the job at hand. Ah...maybe that is too much to ask of Americans...pride in the workplace rather than laziness and handouts?

CTA513
05-05-2010, 04:08 PM
Just put up big clear walls around the whole field so idiots like this can't get on the field.
Then we can all thank people like this for having to do so.

Brutus
05-05-2010, 04:11 PM
Well it seems they tried that and it didn't work. So that is why you mess with a good thing.... because that good thing didn't work and this was a relatively safe way to get the job done.

Amnesty International has reported that between 2001-2008, 334 deaths in the United States have been attributed to the taser.

I'm really not sure how safe that sounds with that many deaths.

CTA513
05-05-2010, 04:21 PM
Maybe they shouldn't work security if they cannot maintain themselves physically capable of doing the job...the taser shouldn't be a crutch for not being in shape for the job at hand. Ah...maybe that is too much to ask of Americans...pride in the workplace rather than laziness and handouts?

People wouldn't have to be tasered or tackled if idiots followed the rules.

Ltlabner
05-05-2010, 04:26 PM
It seems to me that tackling would have taken care of it--and would not have resulted in the negative publicity and the potential legal action that might be taken by the fan or his family. Yes, tackling is potentially dangerous, but since it's been used so many times with no controversy, why mess with a good thing?

That's certainly a fair question and I agree on the negative PR aspects. It was a judgment call as best I can tell *unless* the PPD (assuming they are the ones in that jurisdiction) has some sort of policy in place dictating the use of the taser in that situation (doubt it).



Amnesty International has reported that between 2001-2008, 334 deaths in the United States have been attributed to the taser.

I'm really not sure how safe that sounds with that many deaths.

Without going peanut gallery stats by AI are not what I'd call "rock solid" or "unbiased".

"That many deaths" means zilch without knowing how many uses of the taser resulted in the 334 deaths. If it was 335 uses yea, pretty dangerous. If it was 334,000,000 uses in 7 years I'm not losing sleep over it.

And again, you seem to be clinging to the notion that gang tackling people is without peril. It's not. Serious injuries, including death, have been the results of physically trying to restrain someone.

dougdirt
05-05-2010, 04:28 PM
Amnesty International has reported that between 2001-2008, 334 deaths in the United States have been attributed to the taser.

I'm really not sure how safe that sounds with that many deaths.

And how many people were tased between then? Without that number, the context means absolutely nothing. Of those 334 deaths, were they attributed to the taser or was it the taser that caused a heart condition to kick up and cause the death?

Plus Plus
05-05-2010, 04:32 PM
Amnesty International has reported that between 2001-2008, 334 deaths in the United States have been attributed to the taser.

I'm really not sure how safe that sounds with that many deaths.

From what I can gather from different publications online, that number is probably close to the number of people who die due to pepper spray and mace in the state of California alone.

And just something that strikes me as contradictory: you mentioned earlier in this thread that you are for passing an IQ threshold for having children, but are severely opposed to tasing idiots who break the law. Aren't these two parallels? I don't understand how you can be for eugenics and against using tasers on trespassers...

TRF
05-05-2010, 04:38 PM
So much I want to respond to...


Using a weapon on an unarmed kid (or even adult for that matter) that has, at least in several documented cases, caused death, should by everyone's definition be excessive.

No weapon? Not wanted for a violent crime? Not a likely threat of physical harm? Really not seeing any reasons to discharge a weapon on him or inflict bodily pain. Anything in this case beyond catching him, throwing him to the ground and cuffing him seems excessive.

I've never been stunned, so I can't say how much it hurts. But since there have been dozens of reported cases of the device causing serious injury or death, I would say it better be used in the utmost necessary circumstances.

Poor judgement by this kid (emphasis on kid) but even worse judgment by the officer. This is unfortunately becoming too common.

No way to know if there was no weapon, no way to know if he was wanted(non-starter and a silly argument)


Non-violent crime.

You know, there is that distinction that should be made. The point was intentionally exaggerated to remind people that not all crimes are committed equal. Excessive force is not necessary on every criminal - especially ones that show no signs of being armed and are teenagers and wanted for nothing more than trespassing on someone's property.

So if a guy bursts into your kids daycare, runs around waving his arms, making an ass of himself and yelling hysterically, when he has no business there, that's a non-violent crime too right?



That doesn't excuse it.

If he reaches for this weapon that could, in theory, be there. Fine. If he is known to have a weapon. Great. If a suspect is wanted for other alleged crimes that were violent, even better.

But this meets none of the above. The cops know this and are trained to make those distinctions. Despite that, the cop used the weapon anyhow.

This is not justified.

If you wait for a guy to reach for a weapon, you place yourself and others in danger.


Watch the video. The kid was clearly non-violent, and wasn't near anyone or thing he could harm when he was tasered.

To your other point, I have no problem with using "excessive force" to take down an idiot who runs onto the field. Gang tackle him, break his arm, whatever, he deserve it.

But tasering is just another issue. It's too dangerous, risks death and should only be used in true life threatening situations. If the guy running was going after a player or coach, or looked like he was pulling a weapon out, then taser him. But this guys was clearly just a drunken idiot making a fool of himself.


For those who are ok with tackling the kid, but think tasing him is excessive.... have you ever watched a game of football? Ever seen a guy get blind sided and how he lands? Now imagine that happening without any pads or a helmet. If that had happened, would it have been excessive? Would it have been more dangerous? More safe? What if he had broken his neck or suffered a brain injury when his head smashed into the ground because he got blind sided by the officer or a security guard? I have seen it brought up that people have died by taser.... sure. People have died being tackled too.

ding ding ding. Tackling is dangerous to both the person being tackled as well as the tackler. This officer was defending people with no way of knowing intent.


He was running around in circles waiving his towel for 30 seconds and was running away from any ballplayer by the time he was tazed. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out he's not armed and not out to hurt anyone.

In the heat of the moment, you could decide intent?


It seems to me that tackling would have taken care of it--and would not have resulted in the negative publicity and the potential legal action that might be taken by the fan or his family. Yes, tackling is potentially dangerous, but since it's been used so many times with no controversy, why mess with a good thing?

There was no controversy over tackling, because it's been done for thousands of years. This is just tackling with electricity.

Roy Tucker
05-05-2010, 05:01 PM
Maybe next time they can put it to a vote for the fans in the stands. Taze or not to taze, that is the question. Thumbs up or thumbs down, just like the Romans did.

I wonder how longs its going to be before the Philly fans start chanting "taze, taze, taze, ..." when some guy is running around.

Ltlabner
05-05-2010, 05:14 PM
I would assume that rain delays have to be the worst for field violators.

I remember some idiot doing that at Riverfront. Did a belly flop onto the tarp and must have slid 100'. Needless to say the cops were thrilled to go trotting out into the rain to haul this lugnut off.

NJReds
05-05-2010, 05:19 PM
Maybe next time they can put it to a vote for the fans in the stands. Taze or not to taze, that is the question. Thumbs up or thumbs down, just like the Romans did.

I wonder how longs its going to be before the Philly fans start chanting "taze, taze, taze, ..." when some guy is running around.

They were chanting that last night when the cops were escorting him off of the field.

RichRed
05-05-2010, 05:27 PM
I wonder how longs its going to be before the Philly fans start chanting "taze, taze, taze, ..." when some guy is running around.

Since it's Philly we're talking about, I'm sure they'll get several more chances.

Brutus
05-05-2010, 05:48 PM
From what I can gather from different publications online, that number is probably close to the number of people who die due to pepper spray and mace in the state of California alone.

And just something that strikes me as contradictory: you mentioned earlier in this thread that you are for passing an IQ threshold for having children, but are severely opposed to tasing idiots who break the law. Aren't these two parallels? I don't understand how you can be for eugenics and against using tasers on trespassers...

I'm sure you can decipher sarcasm. The IQ threshold was obviously not meant to be literal.

Brutus
05-05-2010, 05:51 PM
The Minority Report is becoming closer to the truth everyday in this country.

Let's start taking action on people for what they might do instead of punishing for what they actually do.

Plus Plus
05-05-2010, 06:32 PM
The Minority Report is becoming closer to the truth everyday in this country.

Let's start taking action on people for what they might do instead of punishing for what they actually do.

I am all for taking action on people for what they might do instead of what they actually do.

If I am in a mall and I see someone pull a gun out of their pocket, I certainly hope that person gets taken down and quickly. I don't want to have to wait for him to show explicit malicious intent by shooting someone before he gets taken down.

The same goes for this- if the kid had a bomb attached to him or had a gun in his pocket that was discovered later, would the use of a taser be ok then? Or are we playing Monday morning quarterback with the situation and deciding that it was a bad idea because of conclusions that could only be drawn explicitly after the fact?

I understand and (although i disagree adamantly) appreciate your disdain for law enforcement, but I feel that your unhappiness is misplaced. The real solution is for that 17 year old kid to not be an idiot and run on the field (which is private property) during a game, thereby breaking the law. The fact of the matter is that his charge of criminal trespassing is the same charge that he would get if he walked into an unlocked house. If a homeowner has a registered handgun and this same kid runs into his or her house because the door is open, and then runs around waving a towel around and not stopping when asked, the homeowner would most likely not be charged if he or she shot the teen. A dramatic scenario, but true none the less.

Pointing blame at the person who is apprehending the person who broke the law is a mistake, imo.

kaldaniels
05-05-2010, 06:38 PM
http://m.espn.go.com/mlb/story?storyId=5165782&top

CTA513
05-05-2010, 07:00 PM
The Minority Report is becoming closer to the truth everyday in this country.

Let's start taking action on people for what they might do instead of punishing for what they actually do.

Seems like they did punish him for what he did and that was going on the field and deciding to run away from the security people chasing him.

Brutus
05-05-2010, 07:39 PM
Seems like they did punish him for what he did and that was going on the field and deciding to run away from the security people chasing him.

But if they punished him simply for what he did, the use of the taser was not necessary. Everyone's point here is that he "could have had a weapon."

If the justification is that he "could" have hurt someone, then the use of the taser was about what he could have done and not what he actually did. What he actually did was run around in circles on a baseball field waving a towel. That is not worthy of using a potentially dangerous weapon.

Falls City Beer
05-05-2010, 07:43 PM
But if they punished him simply for what he did, the use of the taser was not necessary. Everyone's point here is that he "could have had a weapon."

If the justification is that he "could" have hurt someone, then the use of the taser was about what he could have done and not what he actually did. What he actually did was run around in circles on a baseball field waving a towel. That is not worthy of using a potentially dangerous weapon.

I agree; lots of "could have's" and "maybe's"--maybe I'm crazy, but I'd like my law enforcement to err on the side of not using voltage if at all possible. Get the job done with the minimum amount of force necessary. That was clearly not done here; they went for the downs.

Plus Plus
05-05-2010, 08:08 PM
But if they punished him simply for what he did, the use of the taser was not necessary. Everyone's point here is that he "could have had a weapon."

If the justification is that he "could" have hurt someone, then the use of the taser was about what he could have done and not what he actually did. What he actually did was run around in circles on a baseball field waving a towel. That is not worthy of using a potentially dangerous weapon.

What he actually did was break the law by running onto and therefore trespassing upon a piece of private property. Once you break the law you lose rights, plain and simple. This is not a "Minority Report" situation where the security guards went into the stands and tased him because they thought he would eventually run onto the field.

CTA513
05-05-2010, 08:08 PM
But if they punished him simply for what he did, the use of the taser was not necessary. Everyone's point here is that he "could have had a weapon."

If the justification is that he "could" have hurt someone, then the use of the taser was about what he could have done and not what he actually did. What he actually did was run around in circles on a baseball field waving a towel. That is not worthy of using a potentially dangerous weapon.

Don't run away from a cop/security thats chasing you and you probably won't be tasered.

westofyou
05-05-2010, 08:52 PM
Over 300 folks have died from tasers in the last decade, if the 17 year old "kid" who "trespassed" died, would it still have been a justifiable deed?

Because he jumped on the pretty baseball field with all the millionaires?

Probably not.

Falls City Beer
05-05-2010, 09:02 PM
Because he jumped on the pretty baseball field with all the millionaires?



The 800 lb gorilla in the room.

The guy wasn't just pool-hopping, he was waving a towel near some serious "property."

The boy was surrounded by 6 men when he was tased. They had to use their toy.

edabbs44
05-05-2010, 09:06 PM
The 800 lb gorilla in the room.

The guy wasn't just pool-hopping, he was waving a towel near some serious "property."

The boy was surrounded by 6 men when he was tased. They had to use their toy.

Describing the guy as a kid or a boy is kind of misleading. 17 year olds are just as capable of doing damage as anyone else.

reds44
05-05-2010, 09:07 PM
Seriously he was on the field with a bunch of security growns and professional athletes much bigger than he was. Who was he going to hurt?

As for "what if he had something" what if anybody in the stands have something? You don't have to run onto the field to shoot a gun.

fearofpopvol1
05-05-2010, 09:08 PM
I have no problem with the tasering.

Nobody knew what the kid had on him. It's easy to say, "he only had a towel, he was no threat." If he had went over and capped Ryan Howard with a gun, people would have complained that law enforcement didn't do enough to prevent it from happening. You can't have it both ways.

Better safe than sorry in my opinion. Law enforcement did not seriously injure him. He should have known better than to jump on the field. I would fully expect to get hurt if I jumped onto the field. I guess common sense doesn't apply here.

Falls City Beer
05-05-2010, 09:08 PM
Describing the guy as a kid or a boy is kind of misleading. 17 year olds are just as capable of doing damage as anyone else.

Boy, guy. Take your pick. If he'd interrupted a family cookout, no one would be defending a tasering. Put him around a bunch of his "betters" then all of a sudden things change.

westofyou
05-05-2010, 09:10 PM
Describing the guy as a kid or a boy is kind of misleading. 17 year olds are just as capable of doing damage as anyone else.

Yep, they also get their mommy's to apologize for them too.

He looks real dangerous here.

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/NY-AE903_gay_D_20100504172001.jpg

Chip R
05-05-2010, 09:11 PM
My question is, how old do you have to be before it's OK to get tazed? 18? 21?

CTA513
05-05-2010, 09:11 PM
Boy, guy. Take your pick. If he'd interrupted a family cookout, no one would be defending a tasering. Put him around a bunch of his "betters" then all of a sudden things change.

I'm pretty sure a cop would be willing to taser him if he did something against the law and decided to run away from him instead of giving himself up.

Falls City Beer
05-05-2010, 09:13 PM
My question is, how old do you have to be before it's OK to get tazed? 18? 21?

I don't think age matters, circumstance does. Beating up an old lady? Tase him. Swinging a baseball bat at a bunch of people? Tase him. Running onto a baseball field with a towel? Tackle will do.

edabbs44
05-05-2010, 09:15 PM
Boy, guy. Take your pick. If he'd interrupted a family cookout, no one would be defending a tasering. Put him around a bunch of his "betters" then all of a sudden things change.

That's a bit of a reach. Today sporting events are commonly identified as potential targets for acts of terrorism. Airports, shopping malls, sporting events, etc are always being cited in law enforcement reports. I haven't heard of family cookouts as being high on the potential target list.

Yell "bomb" on a plane and see if there is a different reaction than if you walked into someone's Memorial Day BBQ and said something similar.

edabbs44
05-05-2010, 09:15 PM
Yep, they also get their mommy's to apologize for them too.

He looks real dangerous here.

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/NY-AE903_gay_D_20100504172001.jpg

I'm reading the book "Columbine" right now. Those guys looked about as dangerous as my 18 month old twins.

Falls City Beer
05-05-2010, 09:15 PM
That's a bit of a reach. Today sporting events are commonly identified as potential targets for acts of terrorism. Airports, shopping malls, sporting events, etc are always being cited in law enforcement reports. I haven't heard of family cookouts as being high on the potential target list.

Yell "bomb" on a plane and see if there is a different reaction than if you walked into someone's Memorial Day BBQ and said something similar.

I know who's reaching here, and it ain't me.

westofyou
05-05-2010, 09:17 PM
Other countries patrol their STREETS without guns, imagine that.

dougdirt
05-05-2010, 09:20 PM
Other countries patrol their STREETS without guns, imagine that.

So anyone with a gun can just do whatever they want then, right?

westofyou
05-05-2010, 09:21 PM
So anyone with a gun can just do whatever they want then, right?

Towels too

Falls City Beer
05-05-2010, 09:22 PM
I'm reading the book "Columbine" right now. Those guys looked about as dangerous as my 18 month old twins.

Except the major difference between Klebold/Harris and your twins is that Klebold/Harris had a blog where they proclaimed they wanted kill everyone, and had a rap sheet that included bomb-making.

Some people build bombs, some people swing towels and wear Phillies t-shirts.

I know, I know: kill em all; let god sort em out.

edabbs44
05-05-2010, 09:23 PM
Except the major difference between Klebold/Harris and your twins is that Klebold/Harris had a blog where they proclaimed they wanted kill everyone, and had a rap sheet that included bomb-making.

The post I responded to spoke only about looks.

dougdirt
05-05-2010, 09:26 PM
Towels too

They didn't unload a clip into the kid. They tased him. Huge difference.

westofyou
05-05-2010, 09:27 PM
They didn't unload a clip into the kid. They tased him. Huge difference.

Says the guy who doesn't care if the government taps his phone.. yeah I'll take your word.

Falls City Beer
05-05-2010, 09:28 PM
They didn't unload a clip into the kid. They tased him. Huge difference.

I hear that beating people using telephone books doesn't leave a bruise either. Excessive force is not necessarily equivalent to lethal force.

dougdirt
05-05-2010, 09:29 PM
Says the guy who doesn't care if the government taps his phone.. yeah I'll take your word.

Sure, because the video has been edited and its all been swept under the rug. He actually was shot 12 times and the 35000 fans are all part of the cover up....

dougdirt
05-05-2010, 09:31 PM
I hear that beating people using telephone books doesn't leave a bruise either. Excessive force is not necessarily equivalent to lethal force.

Yet tasing isn't equivalent to lethal force either. As noted, people have died by being tackled too. You were all for that happening though. That can be considered lethal force as well couldn't it?

westofyou
05-05-2010, 09:31 PM
Sure, because the video has been edited and its all been swept under the run. He actually was shot 12 times and the 35000 fans are all part of the cover up....

Except his dad, who was ignorant of everyones need for blood if anyone gets near the sacred ballplayer to not stop his stupid spawn.

dougdirt
05-05-2010, 09:32 PM
Except his dad, who was ignorant of everyones need for blood if anyone gets near the sacred ballplayer to not stop his stupid spawn.

So his dad is out there saying his son was shot 12 times? Where was the blood in this btw?

Falls City Beer
05-05-2010, 09:32 PM
Yet tasing isn't equivalent to lethal force either. As noted, people have died by being tackled too. You were all for that happening though. That can be considered lethal force as well couldn't it?

I've never heard of anyone dying by being tackled. Again, I don't think tasing necessarily constitutes deadly force, just excessive force.

dougdirt
05-05-2010, 09:33 PM
I've never heard of anyone dying by being tackled. Again, I don't think tasing necessarily constitutes deadly force, just excessive force.

You have never heard of a football player dying because he was tackled? Well, I will let you in on a secret... its happened. And the guys were wearing helmets and pads to protect them from that happening. Still happened.

westofyou
05-05-2010, 09:35 PM
You have never heard of a football player dying because he was tackled? Well, I will let you in on a secret... its happened. And the guys were wearing helmets and pads to protect them from that happening. Still happened.

351 times?

http://www.amnestyusa.org/us-human-rights/taser-abuse/page.do?id=1021202

Falls City Beer
05-05-2010, 09:38 PM
You have never heard of a football player dying because he was tackled? .

No.

I've heard of players dying after concussions and from repetitive head injuries, not a single leg/torso tackle.

Plus Plus
05-05-2010, 09:43 PM
351 times?

http://www.amnestyusa.org/us-human-rights/taser-abuse/page.do?id=1021202

That number of 351 comes with so little context that it means nothing. How many shots were fired to cause those 351 deaths? Was it 351, 1,000, 100,000, 100,000,000 what was it? How many of the people who had tasers used on them because they were in a situation that would dictate taser use also were under the influence of drugs or had a pre-existing heart condition that the taser triggered? And, as said before, Amnesty International isn't the most reliable source for this sort of thing, but that is a discussion for another time and place.

Taser death rates are right in line with deaths due to being struck by lightning (489 between 1995 and 2004). They are hauntingly similar in the ease of avoiding them; don't break the law then run from police and don't get tased, dont walk around in a thunderstorm holding a golf club and don't get struck by lightning. As I cited before, since tasers started being used by law enforcement death rates in suspect apprehension is DOWN 25%. The taser is a useful, non-lethal tool for law enforcement to use when the situation dictates, and a person who trespasses and then flees from law enforcement for ~30s fits the bill.

http://weather.about.com/od/thunderstormsandlightning/f/lightningdeaths.htm

Plus Plus
05-05-2010, 09:45 PM
No.

I've heard of players dying after concussions and from repetitive head injuries, not a single leg/torso tackle.

http://consumerist.com/2009/12/alleged-walmart-shoplifter-dies-after-being-tackled.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-563351/Suspected-burglar-dies-days-tackled-staff-exclusive-flats.html

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1989-01-26/news/8901270037_1_blubaugh-cocoa-bystander

And that is in about 15 seconds of searching on Google.

Falls City Beer
05-05-2010, 09:47 PM
The only question that matters is this: which is more excessive, tackling or tasering?

Both were options. Don't pretend like both weren't at their disposal. There were six law enforcement men converging on him. Tackling was an option.

Plus Plus
05-05-2010, 09:48 PM
The only question that matters is this: which is more excessive, tackling or tasering?

Both were options. Don't pretend like both weren't at their disposal. There were six law enforcement men converging on him. Tackling was an option.

I absolutely am not pretending that they weren't at their disposal. I would feel the same way about this had he been body slammed by Andre the Giant while running around the field as I do because he got tasered. Break the law, and all bets are off.

dougdirt
05-05-2010, 09:49 PM
351 times?

http://www.amnestyusa.org/us-human-rights/taser-abuse/page.do?id=1021202

Probably not. I still would like to know what percentage that 351 times make up here though. I mean, 36000 people die in the US from the flu each year. How many people think they are close to death when they get the flu?

99.7% of all taser incidents end with no or minor injuries (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/84955.php) (scrapes/bruises as a result of the fall). That sounds relatively safe to me.

Falls City Beer
05-05-2010, 09:50 PM
http://consumerist.com/2009/12/alleged-walmart-shoplifter-dies-after-being-tackled.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-563351/Suspected-burglar-dies-days-tackled-staff-exclusive-flats.html

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1989-01-26/news/8901270037_1_blubaugh-cocoa-bystander

And that is in about 15 seconds of searching on Google.

Read those articles. Then claim that it was death by tackling. Heart conditions, piling on, excessive restraint.

dougdirt
05-05-2010, 09:51 PM
The only question that matters is this: which is more excessive, tackling or tasering?

Both were options. Don't pretend like both weren't at their disposal. There were six law enforcement men converging on him. Tackling was an option.

Except it wasn't working. They tried tackling. They couldn't get him. At what point is it no longer an option? When he quits resisting arrest? And make no mistake about it, that is exactly what he was doing the first time he continued running after being told to stop.

dougdirt
05-05-2010, 09:52 PM
Read those articles. Then claim that it was death by tackling. Heart conditions, piling on, excessive restraint.

And how many of those 'death by taser' cases were from similar situations?

Falls City Beer
05-05-2010, 09:53 PM
And how many of those 'death by taser' cases were from similar situations?

Again, I'm not the one claiming that tasering constitutes "deadly" force. I'm saying it's excessive.

Plus Plus
05-05-2010, 09:57 PM
Read those articles. Then claim that it was death by tackling. Heart conditions, piling on, excessive restraint.

http://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-local_taserdeath_0506may06,0,6153588.story

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0730taser30.html

http://tampabay.injuryboard.com/defective-and-dangerous-products/another-taser-death-in-clearwater.aspx?googleid=202670

These are the first three articles found when searching for "death by taser" in Google. All cite drug use or pre-existing heart conditions as causes of death as well.

I read the articles that I posted, and think that they display that a tackle scenario had a very similar chance to hurt or kill this person as a taser would have. I think this is explicitly clear, even to the posters on this forum that are most ingrained into their positions.

TheNext44
05-05-2010, 09:58 PM
Ignore the the risk of tasering, since it appears there is no clear consensus anywhere on this.

Just address this one question (stated three different ways):

Was tasering this guy necessary?

Was tasering this the guy the last option that the officer had?

Was tasering this guy the only way they could stop him?

dougdirt
05-05-2010, 09:59 PM
Again, I'm not the one claiming that tasering constitutes "deadly" force. I'm saying it's excessive.

But what makes it excessive? As noted, 99.7% of taserings showed to be very safe.

Falls City Beer
05-05-2010, 10:01 PM
But what makes it excessive? As noted, 99.7% of taserings showed to be very safe.

Because sending voltage through someone's body is different from restraining someone manually. I can't understand why you can't see the difference.

Falls City Beer
05-05-2010, 10:03 PM
I read the articles that I posted, and think that they display that a tackle scenario had a very similar chance to hurt or kill this person as a taser would have. I think this is explicitly clear, even to the posters on this forum that are most ingrained into their positions.

Remind me why this is an issue of deadly force again?

Plus Plus
05-05-2010, 10:03 PM
Because sending voltage through someone's body is different from restraining someone manually. I can't understand why you can't see the difference.

And, likewise, slamming a person into the ground as he is running away is different from restraining someone manually. It's not like they could just hug him or grab his arm to get him to stop- he had been running for a good amount of time.

Falls City Beer
05-05-2010, 10:04 PM
It's not like they could just hug him or grab his arm to get him to stop- he had been running for a good amount of time.

How do you know?

Brutus
05-05-2010, 10:04 PM
What he actually did was break the law by running onto and therefore trespassing upon a piece of private property. Once you break the law you lose rights, plain and simple. This is not a "Minority Report" situation where the security guards went into the stands and tased him because they thought he would eventually run onto the field.

It's minority report from the standpoint the justification by everyone about the tasering is that "he could have had a gun."

What he actually did, by itself, should not justify being tasered. That's the point here. The law he broke was not worth risking his life over. Chase him, corner him, cuff him and charge him with a misdemeanor.

Plus Plus
05-05-2010, 10:05 PM
How do you know?

How do you know it was possible? In the video, it sure didn't look to be an option.

Falls City Beer
05-05-2010, 10:06 PM
How do you know it was possible? In the video, it sure didn't look to be an option.

I'd recommend watching the video again. Six on one.

Plus Plus
05-05-2010, 10:08 PM
It's minority report from the standpoint the justification by everyone about the tasering is that "he could have had a gun."

What he actually did, by itself, should not justify being tasered. That's the point here. The law he broke was not worth risking his life over. Chase him, corner him, cuff him and charge him with a misdemeanor.

And your explanation that it is not allowed because he didn't have a gun or any bad intentions and is just a 17 year old kid trying to have fun lies in the exact same realm.

Brutus
05-05-2010, 10:09 PM
How do you know it was possible? In the video, it sure didn't look to be an option.

Are you kidding? They had that kid dead to rights. He was surrounded by half a dozen security guards. He wasn't going anywhere.

Plus Plus
05-05-2010, 10:09 PM
I'd recommend watching the video again. Six on one.

And the six were nowhere close to catching the one.

dougdirt
05-05-2010, 10:09 PM
I'd recommend watching the video again. Six on one.

Six guys that couldn't catch the one. Maybe you should watch it again.

Falls City Beer
05-05-2010, 10:12 PM
Six guys that couldn't catch the one. Maybe you should watch it again.

I live here; I've seen the clip a thousand times. I"m not saying the security guys were smart....

I'm saying they could have caught him without aid of a weapon.

dougdirt
05-05-2010, 10:13 PM
Because sending voltage through someone's body is different from restraining someone manually. I can't understand why you can't see the difference.

Have you ever been tased?

Like I have noted several times now, 99.7% of all tasings showed to lead to nothing more than a bruise/scrape. Tasers when they make contact with you are sending low amounts of voltage through you. This isn't a stun gun that is hitting you, there is a large difference between the two (I have been hit with a stun gun before, it was not a fun situation).

Adults tackling other adults is dangerous. Lets not pretend it is not. They weren't going to just hug him to the ground. It doesn't work that way.

Ltlabner
05-05-2010, 10:13 PM
I've never heard of anyone dying by being tackled. Again, I don't think tasing necessarily constitutes deadly force, just excessive force.

There have been people seriously injured and died while struggling with the police who were trying to restrain them. It's not all neat and nice.


Because sending voltage through someone's body is different from restraining someone manually. I can't understand why you can't see the difference.

Yes, there's a difference. There's also risk involved in both. Physically restraining someone is not always a picnic no matter how much you proclaim it.


I'm saying they could have caught him without aid of a weapon.

Of course they could have. They had several options available to them and the officer made a judgment call in the heat of the moment. Was it the right call? Maybe, maybe not. But let's not act like the tasering was one notch shy of shooting this poor innocent little fella and that all they had to do was say please to get him to stop.

dougdirt
05-05-2010, 10:14 PM
I live here; I've seen the clip a thousand times. I"m not saying the security guys were smart....

I'm saying they could have caught him without aid of a weapon.

They sure didn't seem like they could. Or he wouldn't have been running around as long as he was.

Plus Plus
05-05-2010, 10:25 PM
Remind me why this is an issue of deadly force again?

Excessive force was never qualified by you or anyone else in a form other than "they should have just tackled him," so I took something that I knew you would agree was excessive, deadly force. I think that taser use and use of physical apprehension in that unique situation are much closer together in the "force used" spectrum than some are arguing that they are. The deadly force statistics support that, and the taser statistics that Doug has presented show that the chance of injury with a taser is extremely small.

Brutus
05-05-2010, 10:25 PM
And your explanation that it is not allowed because he didn't have a gun or any bad intentions and is just a 17 year old kid trying to have fun lies in the exact same realm.

I'm saying it was poor judgment by the officer and excessive because it wasn't necessary. It was force that wasn't needed to resolve the situation. The fact he didn't have a weapon and didn't show any signs of having one was the reason that taking that step was not needed.

Officers are taught to use the least amount of force necessary and only do what they need to do based on the situation. They did not do that here. The guards had the kid surrounded and would have undoubtedly caught him, but the officer took the lazy way out and fired a weapon without any need to do so.

TheNext44
05-05-2010, 10:33 PM
14 pages on this?

I think the only thing that could make this thread last longer is if it was about Adam Dunn tasering Drew Stubbs. :cool:

Brutus
05-05-2010, 10:38 PM
Excessive force was never qualified by you or anyone else in a form other than "they should have just tackled him," so I took something that I knew you would agree was excessive, deadly force. I think that taser use and use of physical apprehension in that unique situation are much closer together in the "force used" spectrum than some are arguing that they are. The deadly force statistics support that, and the taser statistics that Doug has presented show that the chance of injury with a taser is extremely small.


ex·ces·sive (k-ssv)
adj.
Exceeding a normal, usual, reasonable, or proper limit.

They didn't need the aid of the taser to catch the kid. Thereby it was excessive.

Eric_the_Red
05-05-2010, 11:07 PM
Over the 300+ taser deaths reported, how many lives were saved in those incidents?

Could they have tackled him? Perhaps, eventually. But tasering him was quick and harmless.

If the use of tasers was so dangerous and potentially lethel, why do police officers allow themselves to get tased in training?

fearofpopvol1
05-06-2010, 12:05 AM
The ironic part about this is that the Phils have said moving forward that law enforcement will not be involved in these incidents until after said person has been "caught." The kid is fine...he's not suffering any injuries. What good does it do to continue to beat a dead horse? The police department said the officer was within his rights to tase the kid anyway.

Roy Tucker
05-06-2010, 08:14 AM
Maybe next time that can use big butterfly nets to catch the bozos. Or put out the boards with nails that police use to stop runaway speeders. Or get a cop on a horse to run the guy down and hog-tie him like at a rodeo. Maybe put a sleeper hold on him. Offer him a beer to leave the field. Threaten paddling. Throw rocks at him. Shoot him with a tranquilizer gun. Call him bad names and challenge him to a fist fight. Tell him its a game of tag and the cop is "it" now.

TRF
05-06-2010, 10:40 AM
Over 300 folks have died from tasers in the last decade, if the 17 year old "kid" who "trespassed" died, would it still have been a justifiable deed?

Because he jumped on the pretty baseball field with all the millionaires?

Probably not.

And since we are playing "what if", if he'd died and a .38 was tucked in his pants?

Then yeah.

TRF
05-06-2010, 10:44 AM
ex·ces·sive (k-ssv)
adj.
Exceeding a normal, usual, reasonable, or proper limit.

They didn't need the aid of the taser to catch the kid. Thereby it was excessive.

Catch is the wrong word. Stop is the right one.

A tasering that prevents violence or the threat of violence DURING the act of committing a crime is justified. Nobody yelling "kill the ump" was tasered. A guy trespassing, creating a public disturbance, and potentially was dangerous to the players on the field was.

Ltlabner
05-06-2010, 11:15 AM
ex·ces·sive (k-ssv)
adj.
Exceeding a normal, usual, reasonable, or proper limit.

They didn't need the aid of the taser to catch the kid. Thereby it was excessive.

The problem is you don't get to define what "normal", "reasonable" or "proper limit" in this situation based on your views and ideals. Otherwise you could declare it unreasonable for them to chase the kid and demand that they sit and do nothing. That makes no sense.

What sets the norms and what is reasonable is the Philly PD procedures and SOP's for when a taser can/can not be employed to stop a subject. If the Philly PD use of force guidelines allow for officer discretion in that situation then it is by definition normal and reasonable (whether you agree with it or not is another question). If the Philly PD use of force guidelines say you can't use the taser then the officer is in big doo-doo as was acting unreasonably.

Ltlabner
05-06-2010, 11:21 AM
Catch is the wrong word. Stop is the right one.

Well said.

One of the officers duties is to stop criminal acts from escalating. Since the officer can't read the kids mind, doesn't have magic X-ray vision and doesn't know if this kid is somehow a distraction for something else it doesn't strike me as odd that he wanted to stop the situation and stop it now.

Sure, in the cold light of 20-20 vision it's easy for folks to say "it was a dumb kid" but in the heat of the moment the officer has to consider a number of different situations.

And again, I don't think the recent events in NYC can be overlooked. How do we know the officers and security folks weren't briefed before the game that any on-field shenanigans were to be stopped as quickly as possible. So the officer makes the judgment call to stop the situation now as opposed to playing keystone cops chasing the kid for another 5 minutes.

TeamCasey
05-06-2010, 11:50 AM
For all those arguing with Brutus or trying to persuade him, let it go.

a) Brutus has already said if the President of the USA was on the field and such a fan made it past security, he would not be in favor of allowing the trespasser to be tased.

b) He has compared this fan someone toliet papering...nothing more.

I couldn't disagree with those 2 points stronger, but I know someone steadfast in their beliefs when I see them, and I respect that conviction.

Movin' on. :beerme:


I'm agreeing with Brutus thusfar. (I'm about halfway through thread.) I thought it was excessive. From my quick research, I counted 433 taser deaths up to last year.

TRF
05-06-2010, 02:15 PM
I'm agreeing with Brutus thusfar. (I'm about halfway through thread.) I thought it was excessive. From my quick research, I counted 433 taser deaths up to last year.

out of how many incidents? It's been stated it isn't fatal 99.7% of the time. Toyota should have such a track record.

pedro
05-06-2010, 02:27 PM
I think they should have shot him in the face with a shotgun. He did break the law after all.

CTA513
05-06-2010, 02:30 PM
I think they should have shot him in the face with a shotgun. He did break the law after all.

It would take a while to clean up the mess though.

TRF
05-06-2010, 02:32 PM
I think they should have shot him in the face with a shotgun. He did break the law after all.

ugh. I get the sarcasm, but ugh.

so, if a guy runs into your backyard, runs around all crazy, and say your kids are in close proximity.. you'd do what? wait till he was done, opened the gate and let him leave?

I'd clock him with a shovel myself.

Falls City Beer
05-06-2010, 02:47 PM
ugh. I get the sarcasm, but ugh.

so, if a guy runs into your backyard, runs around all crazy, and say your kids are in close proximity.. you'd do what? wait till he was done, opened the gate and let him leave?

I'd clock him with a shovel myself.

Round up the kids, tell them to go inside. Call the cops. But then, I have no desire to be Charles Bronson.

durl
05-06-2010, 02:48 PM
Round up the kids, tell them to go inside. Call the cops.

...so they can taser him? :D

TRF
05-06-2010, 02:53 PM
Round up the kids, tell them to go inside. Call the cops. But then, I have no desire to be Charles Bronson.

really. in the heat of the moment you try to gather the kids instead of stopping the threat?

well, to each their own.

Ltlabner
05-06-2010, 02:53 PM
It would take a while to clean up the mess though.

Unless it's one of the Cincinnati Reds pulling the trigger. Pretty good chance they'd miss completely.

Thank you! I'm here all week!

Roy Tucker
05-06-2010, 03:01 PM
Round up the kids, tell them to go inside. Call the cops. But then, I have no desire to be Charles Bronson.

And then the cops will come and taze him!

Actually, I'd sic my kids on him. They can be pretty mean.

That, or let my lab loose out the back door. She'll lick the guy to death.

RedsBaron
05-06-2010, 03:05 PM
I think they should have shot him in the face with a shotgun. He did break the law after all.
Nope. A shot to the leg should have been tried first. He probably would have then quit running or at least would not have run so fast on just one leg. ;)

Falls City Beer
05-06-2010, 03:17 PM
really. in the heat of the moment you try to gather the kids instead of stopping the threat?

well, to each their own.

I guess it depends. If he's coming at my kids or brandishing a weapon, then sure, I tackle the guy. But if he's running around drunk waving a towel, I take a deep breath and respond to the situation rationally.

Redsfan320
05-06-2010, 03:23 PM
so, if a guy runs into your backyard, runs around all crazy, and say your kids are in close proximity.. you'd do what?

If someone's acting like this around my kids, and I have the shotgun nearby, I certainly consider using it. But the thread is starting to fall of topic.

320

pedro
05-06-2010, 03:52 PM
ugh. I get the sarcasm, but ugh.

so, if a guy runs into your backyard, runs around all crazy, and say your kids are in close proximity.. you'd do what? wait till he was done, opened the gate and let him leave?

I'd clock him with a shovel myself.

I'm not sure what your analogy has to do with what actually happened. It wasn't a backyard and no ones kids were within a 100 yards.

TeamCasey
05-06-2010, 04:00 PM
out of how many incidents? It's been stated it isn't fatal 99.7% of the time. Toyota should have such a track record.

One death is too much from a "non-lethal" weapon. I don't believe there is an acceptable number of deaths. What number of people killed is OK with you?

Another interesting thing to research is how many people have been tased that were found not guilty of any crime.

TRF
05-06-2010, 04:01 PM
I'm not sure what your analogy has to do with what actually happened. It wasn't a backyard and no ones kids were within a 100 yards.

But how is it that much different. Heat of the moment, you have no idea what the intent of the guy is.

Now ramp this up by putting it in a public setting, 40,000 fans coming off a failed bombing attempt in Times Square. I have no doubt they were instructed to end any disruptions as quickly as possible.

Justified. Not Excessive. And the public is protected. The facts after don't matter in regards to the actions of this officer. He stopped a crime from continuing.

TRF
05-06-2010, 04:02 PM
One death is too much from a "non-lethal" weapon. I don't believe there is an acceptable number of deaths. What number of people killed is OK with you?

Another interesting thing to research is how many people have been tased that were found not guilty of any crime.

Then don't fly. don't drive. don't take medicine. don't inoculate your children.

All of those actions come with a risk of death.

As for the second part, not applicable as he was guilty.

pedro
05-06-2010, 04:08 PM
But how is it that much different. Heat of the moment, you have no idea what the intent of the guy is.

Now ramp this up by putting it in a public setting, 40,000 fans coming off a failed bombing attempt in Times Square. I have no doubt they were instructed to end any disruptions as quickly as possible.

Justified. Not Excessive. And the public is protected. The facts after don't matter in regards to the actions of this officer. He stopped a crime from continuing.

It's hugely different.

I guess cops should just fire bean bags through car windows and then taze speeders because hey, they're committing a crime and who knows? maybe they have a bomb in their car and they plan to kill some babies with it. I mean, it could happen, right?

"the public is protected"? Christ o mighty if the kid meant anyone anybody in the stands any harm what was he doing on the field waving a towel around for?

Ltlabner
05-06-2010, 04:10 PM
One death is too much from a "non-lethal" weapon. I don't believe there is an acceptable number of deaths. What number of people killed is OK with you?

Since there are zero ways to apprehend another human that doesn't involve some sort of risk, including that of death, are you suggesting the police officers should just politely ask criminals to stop what they are doing and hope they comply?

To tie to the subject, are you suggesting that police officers should just let anybody who gets on the field run amok until they get tired? Because if, as you say "one death is too many" the police officers really have no options on how to stop a criminal other than say pretty please.

Although the random stampedes onto the field could be the excitement MLB's been trying to interject into the game.

RedEye
05-06-2010, 04:12 PM
Since there are zero ways to apprehend another human that doesn't involve some sort of risk, including that of death, are you suggesting the police officers should just politely ask criminals to stop what they are doing and hope they comply?

To tie to the subject, are you suggesting that police officers should just let anybody who gets on the field run amok until they get tired? Because if, as you say "one death is too many" the police officers really have no options on how to stop a criminal other than say pretty please.

Although the random stampedes onto the field could be the excitement MLB's been trying to interject into the game.

Maybe they should train so that they can run faster and catch him without shooting him in the back with a dangerous weapon. That kid was running and waving a towel at the same time and he still managed to evade all of the security guards for several minutes.

Ltlabner
05-06-2010, 04:12 PM
I guess cops should just fire bean bags through car windows and then taze speeders because hey, they're committing a crime and who knows? maybe they have a bomb in their car and they plan to kill some babies with it. I mean, it could happen, right?

No, they shouldn't fire beanbags at speeders.......unless said speeder gets out of the car, runs around like a maniac and avoids being caught.

You can't leave that part out of the discussion. The original crime itself is not worthy of a tasing/bean bagging. Add in the running around, acting like a loon and avoiding arrest (along with other unknown factors)....totally different story.

TRF
05-06-2010, 04:14 PM
It's hugely different.

I guess cops should just fire bean bags through car windows and then taze speeders because hey, they're committing a crime and who knows? maybe they have a bomb in their car and they plan to kill some babies with it. I mean, it could happen, right?

"the public is protected"? Christ o mighty if the kid meant anyone anybody in the stands any harm what was he doing on the field waving a towel around for?

And if he were on drugs instead of drunk, maybe he attacks an umpire. or a player. or the ball girl. That he didn't doesn't mean the next guy won't.

pedro
05-06-2010, 04:20 PM
The cop is lucky he didn't miss and hit the security guard running next to the kid. If he had he'd probably have been sued for everything he has.

BrooklynRedz
05-06-2010, 04:22 PM
The guy broke the law and subsequently avoided arrest, putting the safety of others at risk in pursuit. There is no way to determine his motives or next steps. He got no less than he deserved and just maybe what he wanted. Let it serve as an example for anyone else considering such a stroll around the field. The use of the taser might even have spared him further 'real' harm that would have resulted from a guard or law enforcement individual tackling him.

pedro
05-06-2010, 04:38 PM
Like I said, you're speeding in your car and the cops don't know what your motives are or what the next step you might make is. So even if you pull over, how does the cop know you don't have a gun? after all, you've been breaking the law. Probably best just to shoot you with a tazer.

Ltlabner
05-06-2010, 04:43 PM
Like I said, you're speeding in your car and the cops don't know what your motives are or what the next step you might make is. So even if you pull over, how does the cop know you don't have a gun? after all, you've been breaking the law. Probably best just to shoot you with a tazer.

You are now simply being obtuse.

You can not eliminate the part where the speeder gets out of their car, runs around and avoids arrest in your comparison to the Philly event. Both the original crime AND the running around part must be considered to have an accurate context for discussion.

Otherwise your comments regarding randomly tasering speeders have no connection to the discussion.

Brutus
05-06-2010, 04:49 PM
The problem is you don't get to define what "normal", "reasonable" or "proper limit" in this situation based on your views and ideals. Otherwise you could declare it unreasonable for them to chase the kid and demand that they sit and do nothing. That makes no sense.

What sets the norms and what is reasonable is the Philly PD procedures and SOP's for when a taser can/can not be employed to stop a subject. If the Philly PD use of force guidelines allow for officer discretion in that situation then it is by definition normal and reasonable (whether you agree with it or not is another question). If the Philly PD use of force guidelines say you can't use the taser then the officer is in big doo-doo as was acting unreasonably.

This is the problem with society right here and why more and more "act first, ask questions later" incidents will spring with law enforcement.

We, the people, don't work for the police. They work for us. We are expected to abide by the laws, but we elect the officials that set them. If the police are out of control, it is I, us, we the citizens that determine that. Not them.

The day you start letting them to decide what's proper for us is the day you will not have any rights in this country.

I have every right to my opinion. I do get to decide whether I think what they did was proper because they are agents of the people.

As I have said, they had every right to chase the kid. He was, after all, breaking the law. The issue is that they used force that was unnecessary. Whether it was within "department guidelines" or not, it wasn't necessary to apprehend, catch or stop (whatever word you guys want to use) the petty criminal.

Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

pedro
05-06-2010, 04:50 PM
You are now simply being obtuse.

You can not eliminate the part where the speeder gets out of their car, runs around and avoids arrest in your comparison to the Philly event. Both the original crime AND the running around part must be considered.

Otherwise your comments regarding randomly tasering speeders has no connection to the discussion.

but but but, the cops don't know what your intent is, you could have a bomb in the car, or some illegal fruitbaskets, we just don't know!!!!! the public must be protected! I mean, what if that towel had been on his head? He could have been a terrorist!

(OK, yes, I am being obtuse, I just think it was a little excessive but really no big deal, I'm really reacting more to all the "Joe Friday" rhetoric in this thread as it just cracks me up. Lighten up folks, paranoia isn't healthy)

http://www.spinsucks.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/helen1.png

Ltlabner
05-06-2010, 04:56 PM
I have every right to my opinion. I do get to decide whether I think what they did was proper because they are agents of the people.


Absolutely you are entitled to your opinion of what you feel is right/wrong. Didn't say you weren't. I'm just saying that the bar for "reasonable" or "excessive" (in this case) isn't set by each individual person. The bar is the guidelines set forth by the police department themselves.

Trust me, police departments get all sorts of input from citizens when crafting use of force policies (at least the smart ones do). That input comes both directly from the citizens in terms of citizens review boards, hearings, etc and indirectly via pressure from lawsuits.

In that line of work there are so many snap decisions and judgment calls to be made the bar can't be a moving target set by every person the cop deals with. Thus, a standardized set of rules are put in place as a starting point for determining reasonable/excessive on a case by case basis. Doesn't mean those policies are the end-all/be-all but they are a standardized starting point so the officer can go do his job knowing the groundrules.

TRF
05-06-2010, 05:01 PM
This is the problem with society right here and why more and more "act first, ask questions later" incidents will spring with law enforcement.

We, the people, don't work for the police. They work for us. We are expected to abide by the laws, but we elect the officials that set them. If the police are out of control, it is I, us, we the citizens that determine that. Not them.

The day you start letting them to decide what's proper for us is the day you will not have any rights in this country.

I have every right to my opinion. I do get to decide whether I think what they did was proper because they are agents of the people.

As I have said, they had every right to chase the kid. He was, after all, breaking the law. The issue is that they used force that was unnecessary. Whether it was within "department guidelines" or not, it wasn't necessary to apprehend, catch or stop (whatever word you guys want to use) the petty criminal.

Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

riiight. ok so, every philly fan in attendance should have gotten together and voted on what would have been appropriate force. In my mind, I keep coming back to the umpire that was beaten. Had a cop been nearby with a taser, perhaps they only get one punch in.

And yes, we elect those officials that hire those police. And those officials have deemed tasing as a reasonable response.

You have the right to your opinion. Not disputing it. The cop had the right UNDER THE LAW to tase that idiot. And if, IF he had a gun on him, or knife we'd be talking about him as a hero.

But this time, it was just a stupid kid, being stupid. Any bets on whether he ever does this stupid thing again?

fact: He broke the law. fact: he evaded arrest. fact: he behaved in an irrational manner. fact: he got tased for it.

Good on the cop.

Ltlabner
05-06-2010, 05:03 PM
(OK, yes, I am being obtuse, I just think it was a little excessive but really no big deal, I'm really reacting more to all the "Joe Friday" rhetoric in this thread as it just cracks me up. Lighten up folks, paranoia isn't healthy)

No more hilarious than the Monday-morning quarterbacking by people who really don't know what's involved in doing that job.

Honestly, I tend to agree with the people who are questioning why they weren't able to corral the kid in the first place. The "security guys" looked more like old usher types who didn't really want to get involved. But once they corralled him I could give a whit if they gang tackled him, maced him or tased him. All involve risks to all parties regardless whether he's a drunk kid or an enraged evil-doer.

pedro
05-06-2010, 05:03 PM
I leave it with one last thought. Hundreds, if not thousands, of people have run out onto onto professional and college sporting fields over the past 100 years and not once as far as I know has any one of those people done so with the intent of hurting anybody. It's pretty clear what all these peoples intent is. To prove to the world what complete morons they are. Regardless I can never recall it ever being necessary to use a tazer or other potentially deadly force to subdue any of those folks. So why now?

Brutus
05-06-2010, 05:06 PM
Absolutely you are entitled to your opinion of what you feel is right/wrong. Didn't say you weren't. I'm just saying that the bar for "reasonable" or "excessive" (in this case) isn't set by each individual person. The bar is the guidelines set forth by the police department themselves.

Trust me, police departments get all sorts of input from citizens when crafting use of force policies (at least the smart ones do). That input comes both directly from the citizens in terms of citizens review boards, hearings, etc and indirectly via pressure from lawsuits.

In that line of work there are so many snap decisions and judgment calls to be made the bar can't be a moving target set by every person the cop deals with. Thus, a standardized set of rules are put in place as a starting point for determining reasonable/excessive on a case by case basis. Doesn't mean those policies are the end-all/be-all but they are a standardized starting point so the officer can go do his job knowing the groundrules.

But within almost every jurisdiction, officers are trained to use added force only in a case of last resort. While the guidelines are much more intentionally broad than that to save their own rear ends from prospective suits, I would wager any amount of money that the cop went against his training of when to use his taser.

Unless that cop can look anyone in the eyes and truthfully tell us that they would not have safely apprehended the kid without use of his weapon, then that right there is a good litmus test for determining it was excessive. Watching that video, it doesn't pass the smell test for him to claim that. That kid wasn't going anywhere as they had him surrounded and he sure as heck didn't come across as a threat to anyone.

TRF
05-06-2010, 05:06 PM
I leave it with one last thought. Hundreds, if not thousands, of people have run out onto onto professional and college sporting fields over the past 100 years and not once as far as I know has any one of those people done so with the intent of hurting anybody. It's pretty clear what all these peoples intent is. To prove to the world what complete morons they are. Regardless I can never recall it ever being necessary to use a tazer or other potentially deadly force to subdue any of those folks. So why now?

Laz Diaz and Tom Gamboa say hi.

And the world is just different now. I'm only 42, but when I was a kid, you could do things I would NEVER let my kids do now. The whole world seems a smaller more hostile place.

Brutus
05-06-2010, 05:09 PM
Laz Diaz and Tom Gamboa say hi.

And the world is just different now. I'm only 42, but when I was a kid, you could do things I would NEVER let my kids do now. The whole world seems a smaller more hostile place.

The world is no different.

People have always been out for love, money and power. It's no different now than it was hundreds of years ago.

The only thing that different is that it all gets plastered on the news across so many medians and we now live in a society that is practically scaring people into submission.

pedro
05-06-2010, 05:09 PM
Laz Diaz and Tom Gamboa say hi.

And the world is just different now. I'm only 42, but when I was a kid, you could do things I would NEVER let my kids do now. The whole world seems a smaller more hostile place.

Ok, I have to admit I forgot about those idiots.

I'm just a little wary of police using excessive force as Portland has a really bad problem with that happening all too often.

TRF
05-06-2010, 05:12 PM
The world is no different.

People have always been out for love, money and power. It's no different now than it was hundreds of years ago.

The only thing that different is that it all gets plastered on the news across so many medians and we now live in a society that is practically scaring people into submission.

Nobody was taking out the WTC when i was a kid.

Go back 10 more years and people were still wearing suits to the ballpark.

I don't think people should be afraid to go to the ballpark. I don't think players, coaches or umpires should fear for their safety.

Tasers can help with that. safely too. at least 99.7% of the time.

Ltlabner
05-06-2010, 05:12 PM
So does this mean "Taser Night" at the ballpark isn't going to be a universally accepted promotion?

pedro
05-06-2010, 05:14 PM
Nobody was taking out the WTC when i was a kid.

Go back 10 more years and people were still wearing suits to the ballpark.

I don't think people should be afraid to go to the ballpark. I don't think players, coaches or umpires should fear for their safety.

Tasers can help with that. safely too. at least 99.7% of the time.

One more question, do you honestly think a single fan in the stands was scared of that kid?