Originally Posted By wahooskipper Simple-minded? What could be more simple than: STAY OFF THE FIELD? I mean, seriously, it doesn't get any more simple than that.
Originally Posted By Labuda "Around here when an unruly fan is escorted from the game chants of USE YOUR GUN USE YOUR GUN tend to eminate from the bleachers." Wow. Now I have yet another reason to dislike the state of Wisconsin. USE YOUR GUN?!?! SERIOUSLY? What is WRONG with people?
Originally Posted By DAR <<Wow. Now I have yet another reason to dislike the state of Wisconsin.>> Well I'm going to lose sleep over that one. <<USE YOUR GUN?!?! SERIOUSLY? What is WRONG with people?>> Well if you heard the tone in which it has been chanted it's quite comical.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "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." You're seriously going to bring this up? Let's put it in context. Talk about distortion and perspective, you're doing it here. I told this story within the context of some long ago thread, but I'm going to repeat it here, since you've seem to have decided to take about as low a road as possible. In 1987, when I was 29, I came home to find someone I had previously arrested dragging my half clothed girlfriend into our apartment. He had ripped her top off and was working on her shorts as I got there. It was pure luck that I got there when I did. He was a gangmember attempting to avenge his arrest by attacking my girlfriend. Yes, I went ballistic. Yes, I beat him to a pulp. Yes, I'd do it again. Yes, it felt good. Any further questions or comments, X? Need to know anything else? You really are a piece of work if you're going to try and smear me with this episode. Talk about going over a line, all because I have taken a position on tasering you don't like. There is no connection between the two, but you've gone about as low as you can go here. "He doesn't scare me, though." The difference between the two of us is this type of comment means nothing to me.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 <<Well if you heard the tone in which it has been chanted it's quite comical.>> While I'm sure in that specific situation it IS supposed to be comical, it is a little sad and scary too. We all know how quickly mobs can become blood thirsty - we have plenty of examples of that throughout history. And for a supposedly Christian Nation, we sure do seem to enjoy watching violence, and also seem to really enjoy revenge. (Something definitely non-Christian by the way - remember that whole turn-the-other-cheek thing?)
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "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)." It's a strawman point meant to incite. Nothing else need be said.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "They're only "teachable moments" if the person is capable of learning from the situation. The guy "sucking pavement" from swinging at the cops is probably an alcoholic. He will only learn from this if he gets therapy and gets off the booze. But our society doesn't treat the disease of alcoholism or drug addiction very well." Probably an alcoholic? You know this how???? You then go off and lecture DAR and whoever else on this assumption? Nice. Early this morning in Hawaiian Gardens, five miles from my house, a 27 year old man took an AK 47 and killed his girlfriend and her 14 year old son. He also wounded her parents. Helicopters woke us all up very early today. LA County Sheriffs heard the gunshots and got to the house before a call came in. They found the guy dousing the house with gasoline, ready to set it on fire. When he saw the deputies, he turned the AK 47 towards them. They dropped him on the spot. Should they have stopped to think if maybe he was high on crack, PCP, drunk, or some other drug before killing him? Sometimes, most times, they have to act on the spot. Same with the incident in Philly. All it takes is one tennis player to be stabbed, one first base coach to be pummeled, and you absolutely can no longer assume someone is harmless. You do what you need to do to subdue them. I encourage anyone who thinks differently to go on a week's worth of ride alongs and then see if you don't reassess.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder My mistake. I heard they shot him in the head, but apparently they just grazed his head. We all presumed that meant he was dead. I should also clarify that when the deputies arrived, they had no idea he had already killed people. They heard shots, then arrived to see him trying to set the place on fire. <a href="http://www.presstelegram.com/breakingnews/ci_15031223" target="_blank">http://www.presstelegram.com/b...15031223</a>
Originally Posted By wahooskipper There are bad cops out there. I've met some of them. But if they are going to be judged by every action and they can't be "right" in any situation, I'm not sure what our expectations are of them. The stun gun was developed for these types of situations. Guy needs to be subdued but no necessarily shot and killed. It worked.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 <<You do what you need to do to subdue them.>> In fairness SPP, I don't think anyone on here has claimed that this guy shouldn't have been taken down, we were just debating the methods used. Was it reasonable to use a taser in this situation, or should have other methods been used? I think that's a legitamate thing to debate. But, I think everyone here agrees that this guy needed to be stopped.
Originally Posted By DAR <<In 1987, when I was 29, I came home to find someone I had previously arrested dragging my half clothed girlfriend into our apartment. He had ripped her top off and was working on her shorts as I got there. It was pure luck that I got there when I did. He was a gangmember attempting to avenge his arrest by attacking my girlfriend. Yes, I went ballistic. Yes, I beat him to a pulp. Yes, I'd do it again. Yes, it felt good. Any further questions or comments, X? Need to know anything else? >> And X if God forbid something as horrific as this happened to Mrs. X or Little X I would hope your reaction would be the same.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> I think everyone here agrees that this guy needed to be stopped. << Enh - not really. I did concert security for eleven years - hardly police work or the FBI, but not much different from sporting events. This was not the crime of the century - just some knucklehead that wanted some attention. What happens if you do literally nothing? This guy will run around the field for a bit but quickly get tired, and there's no where for him to go. It will be easy enough to round him up and walk him out then. I said at the beginning of the thread and I still believe it now - the tasering was excessive and unnecessary, and that this guy posed no harm to anyone. I also agree that tasering is getting to be the lazy cop's go-to solution. Comparing it to shooting someone with a gun is a false choice. And yes - the delight that some people take in the infliction of pain on others is disturbing. I think it comes from watching too many bad tv shows, where the bad guy gets his comeuppance within a tidy sixty minutes and the viewer senses satisfaction as a result. So watching cops punch people, or shoot people, or whatever tends to stimulate that same reflexive gratification. "Instant karma's gonna get you; gonna slap you right in the head" - John Lennon
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Simple-minded? What could be more simple than: STAY OFF THE FIELD? I mean, seriously, it doesn't get any more simple than that.<< That doesn't address my point at all. I've made it very clear I don't really feel bad for the guy and I think he needed to be restrained. I've also made it clear I know there's people out there who belong in prison. The worst of the worst - those who prey on children, rapists, murders, etc - it's hard to feel any sympathy for. You'll also note I haven't faulted or gone after the cops in this thread. All my point is that we ought to be a better culture, especially given our proclaimed Christian nationality. Getting pleasure, as DAR seems to be doing, over a minor criminal's pain and suffering is simple-minded and kinda creepy. Did the guy need to be restrained? Absolutely. Did we know if he was a threat or had a weapon? No we did not. Did the police do the right thing? I think they did. Am I going to yell and cheer like a Roman in the coliseum when someone else gets hurt or "eats pavement?" Sorry, I'm not.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Well, I have to be honest ecdc...I laugh and carry on every time I see a skateboarder "eat pavement" on America's Funniest Home Videos. I guess I find humor in self inflicted pain. I will also admit that I laugh every time a kid knocks his dad in the nether-regions with a baseball bat...though that wasn't self inflicted. And, in the case of the knucklead in Philly I call that self inflicted. Not a thing would have happened to him had he stayed in his seat.
Originally Posted By DAR <<Getting pleasure, as DAR seems to be doing, over a minor criminal's pain and suffering is simple-minded and kinda creepy>> Please 99% of that stadium, wait it's Philly 100% of that stadium was probably laughing their asses off when this guy got tased(it's Philly, they once booed Santa Claus)
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <This was not the crime of the century - just some knucklehead that wanted some attention. What happens if you do literally nothing? This guy will run around the field for a bit but quickly get tired, and there's no where for him to go. It will be easy enough to round him up and walk him out then.> 99 times out of a 100, that's true. It's just an attention-seeking jerk. But if you're a cop (or security), how do you know? How do you know this isn't the one who goes after one of the athletes? How close to them do you let him get? At what point do you go after the jerk? You don't know. So you pretty much have to go after him right away, even if he's probably harmless. And by going after him right away, you also discourage other jerks from doing it by denying him as much time in the spotlight as possible. Do you need to use a taser? Probably not. And that seems to be Philly's response in the aftermath of this too. <Did the guy need to be restrained? Absolutely. Did we know if he was a threat or had a weapon? No we did not. Did the police do the right thing? I think they did. Am I going to yell and cheer like a Roman in the coliseum when someone else gets hurt or "eats pavement?" Sorry, I'm not. > Sums up my feelings well.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Using this incident to try and smear me and say I have "bragged" about cuts about deep as is possible.> Yeah, I remembered in broad strokes you talking about this earlier, and that it was justified, but not the horrendous details. Yikes. X, I think you really are over the line on this one.
