Originally Posted By Mr X ***Let's hope so. otherwise, why bother?*** Lovely. Again, new line of work. Seriously. Think about it. ***If I had to choose between a bullet and an electrode though I would take the taser*** No doubt. But I think that's really the crux of the whole argument, isn't it? Originally, tasers were marketed as a "non-lethal" alternative to shooting someone. And for that purpose, they are great. But when it becomes just an alternative to subduing an unarmed suspect (which is obviously has), then it's time to think about just how casually cops are using the things (and once again, I'm NOT commenting on this particular instance, but just on the issue as a whole...particularly as it might pertain to any law enforcement types who think along the lines of Passholder with his "fry his balls!" and "I'm glad it hurts!" sadistic outlook). ***Had those same thousand people been shot with a gun instead of stunned with a taser I suspect those numbers would have been quite a bit different*** And again, if a cop who would otherwise have used his gun uses a taser instead, I'm totally fine with it. NOW I will, since I seem to have no choice, bring up this particular situation. If this cop hadn't had a taser handy, would lethal force have been justified? Any takers?
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Well, in that particular situation I think the only other option might have been a physical takedown. You certainly can't just leave the kid running around the field indefinitely. And again, I would argue nobody REALLY knew it was just harmless stupidity until it was over. What if they had tasered him and then found a weapon on him? Would that have made the cop's actions ok? Back to the takedown. You could make a case that the kid might have experienced a greater injury had he been tackled to the ground. Broken arm, cracked rib, whatever from the cop or other bystanders piling on him. In this case he fell like a bag of potatoes and they just picked him up and walked him off the field. There is only one way I could think of that absolutely nothing would have happend to the boy. Not jumping the fence to begin with.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Well, in that particular situation I think the only other option might have been a physical takedown*** One would think a physical takedown would've been the option BEFORE the taser, but that doesn't seem to be the case so much these days. ***What if they had tasered him and then found a weapon on him? Would that have made the cop's actions ok?*** I think it would've been neither here nor there (assuming he never brandished it)...2nd amendment and all, it's not a crime to carry a weapon in America right???? Again, my argument is that if a cop would otherwise use deadly force, then a taser is perfectly acceptable. So, what that the case here? Did that kid pose a lethal danger such than any reasonable cop would've shot him out of necessity? That's the question I'm asking.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***And again, I would argue nobody REALLY knew it was just harmless stupidity until it was over*** I think, though, that you could argue something like this about just about ANYTHING, really. WERE those kids on skateboards whizzing through the pedestrians really just pranking, or did they intend harm? What if they had weapons!? WAS that motorist who angrily zoomed away just ticked off because she got cut off, or is she really planning something bad? IS that guy in Times Square who's double parked just being a jerk, or...er, wait. Scratch that one. Point is, these "maybe this or maybe that" scenarios are well and good, but the real point is, was such a use of force justified under the circumstances, or wasn't it.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***There is only one way I could think of that absolutely nothing would have happend to the boy. Not jumping the fence to begin with*** I think I said that about 20 posts back. But again, my question is would he reasonably expect to be killed by police for doing such a thing? If so (and if he was acting in such a menacing manner so as to convince the police that he was a dangerous individual), then by all means taze the guy. Is this the case here?
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I don't know of any stadiums in America where you are allowed to carry in a weapon. The cop didn't know what if that kid posed a lethal danger. Nobody knew Monica Seles' attacker posed a lethal danger...until she was stabbed. Here is my question: would that kid have received any attention at all if he had stayed in the stands like the 13,000 other people who were there? I'll need to hear from a cop on this one but...is there an instance when you would take down a suspect, then taser him, and not get into some trouble?
Originally Posted By Mr X ***The cop didn't know what if that kid posed a lethal danger*** And again, that could be true in ANY circumstance. ***Nobody knew Monica Seles' attacker posed a lethal danger...until she was stabbed*** Okay, then should we now assume that any prankster who trespasses on sports fields be automatically assumed to be dangerous? If so, why didn't that cop just shoot the kid? Certainly he'd be getting the same exact props and "way to go!" comments as he is now for using the tazer gun, right?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I was commenting on PASSHOLDER'S outrageous comment about burning off some guy's testicles. You really think someone with that kind of an attitude towards minor offenses belongs in law enforcement?> You really think he meant it literally? Come on. As I see it... a). obviously the cop was justified in stopping the guy. You don't know until he's stopped if he's a harmless jerk or if it's another potential Seles/Cominsky situation. b). That being said, HOW should the cop stop him? Was the taser justified? That's a harder call for me; a physical takedown (tackling) is probably just as likely to result in physical injury to the jerk, if wahoo's numbers are right. OTOH, there's the danger of the taser hitting the wrong person. So I guess the real question is: does a taser constitute excessive force? Due to the unknown nature of the threat and the fact that injuries are fairly rare, I'd probably come down on the side of "no," although I can see both sides. FWIW, the Phillies have announced that after consulting with the Philly PD, that in-house security (w/o tasers) will handle such incidents in the future, "unless more force is deemed necessary," and THEN turn him over to Philly PD after they catch him. That's how they already do it in NY; other places, I don't know. It makes sense to me - have the team security run after the guy and tackle him (which I think most people would be okay with, even if injury results if there was only tackling and no post-tackle beating, since the jerk would have brought it on himself), unless he shows a weapon. Then, bring the city police in. (NY always has uniformed cops at games, and I assume Philly and other cities do too.)
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 Okay, then should we now assume that any prankster who trespasses on sports fields be automatically assumed to be dangerous?<< Exactly.... if they broke one law, maybe they will break another...
Originally Posted By ecdc Post 50 sums up my feelings. And I'll reiterate, I certainly don't feel sorry for the guy and I don't really blame the cops, but the, "Yeah, take that," jubilation from some disturbs me a bit.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Okay, then should we now assume that any prankster who trespasses on sports fields be automatically assumed to be dangerous?<< Exactly.... if they broke one law, maybe they will break another...*** Does your color blindness preclude shades of grey? Just wondering. I've jaywalked in my life, that's a crime. If I'm caught jaywalking, should I be tazed "just in case", because I've already broken one law? Dude. Are you serious?
Originally Posted By Mr X ***You really think he meant it literally? Come on.*** Yes. And if I didn't believe it before, his further nasty comments about wanting it to hurt, coupled with telling people who didn't care for his comments to "screw off" certainly bolstered my opinion. He's a mean S.O.B. who likes seeing people get hurt. Have we all forgotten the time he bragged about nearly murdering some criminal who broke into his house or whatever? I'm sure we were all very impressed hearing about the bloody condition in which he left his hapless enemy...but I guess nobody cared much for *that* excessive force, right? Good for you Passholder! You are a natural born madman, and you should be very proud of yourself! Tough guy is as tough guy does, and yes I believe he's got some Jack Bauer syndrome going on there. He doesn't scare me, though. As to the rest of your post, Dabob, I sort of agree with you but once again, MY argument is that a taser is a near-last-resort weapon which you might use if your only other choice is to shoot someone. Isn't that how they marketed and sold the things to we the people? And is this now an instance where deadly force was warranted, but a cop managed to spare the criminal through non-lethal means? I just have to say this...if the cop had SHOT the guy, would you guys all still be applauding? THAT'S really my point (I'm sure Passholder is applauding already lol).
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 If I'm caught jaywalking, should I be tazed "just in case", because I've already broken one law? Dude. Are you serious?<< Trespassing on Private property (the playing field) is a little more severe than jawalking across the street... It is a proven fact terrorists would love to commit an act of terrorism at a sports stadium.....
Originally Posted By DAR <<I just have to say this...if the cop had SHOT the guy, would you guys all still be applauding?>> If he was carrying a knife and posed a threat I wouldn't be applauding, but I would have acknowledged the officer did his job.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Trespassing on Private property (the playing field) is a little more severe than jawalking across the street*** Doesn't matter. I broke one law, I might break another. Right? ***It is a proven fact terrorists would love to commit an act of terrorism at a sports stadium*** And now you're saying this guy in question might have been a terrorist?? Good Lord, have we lost ALL perspective? I think so.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 And now you're saying this guy in question might have been a terrorist?? Good Lord, have we lost ALL perspective?<< Now we know he wasn't, but the officer had seconds to make a decision... If he had been a terrorist and he hesitated, we would be spending today complaining about how a cop blew it and cost lives...
