Baseball fan tasered for running onto the field

[Asimovian]

Article here (http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/blog/big_league_stew/post/Teen-fan-tasered-by-Phillies-security-after-runn;_ylt=AvO6CbQpHgb49F52pQ9yJokRvLYF?urn=mlb,238457).

I'm having a hard time deciding whether this is excessive or not. My instinct is to say yes. While I think people who decide to run on to the field are morons and asking for what they get (most of the time), the use of a type of force that has sometimes proven unintentionally deadly strikes me as going a bit far. On the other side, perhaps if your average drunk fan thinks he might get more than just tackled, he might reconsider whether charging the field sounds like a lot of fun.

So what do you folks think? Is a taser too much? Most fans are just looking for a minute of fame in a game that could use a distraction, but I'm also reminded of the tennis player (I've forgotten who it was, now) that was stabbed by a fan running on to the court. If you think a taser is overdoing it now, would you change your mind if a player was actually injured (or worse) by a fan getting loose on the field?

[Asimovian]

Oh, right -- Monica Seles was the tennis player that got stabbed (http://tennisplanet.wordpress.com/2007/03/04/tennis-player-stabbed-on-the-court-monica-seles/).

[Cat Whisperer]

I dunno; a good way to avoid getting tasered for going where you know you're not supposed to go is, well, don't go there. And there are excellent reasons for fans to not go onto baseball fields.

[Machine Elf]

...the use of a type of force that has sometimes proven unintentionally deadly strikes me as going a bit far.

Pretty much every type of force has proven unintentionally deadly at some time or another; I don't think this alone is cause for criticism.

[Omar Little]

This would have completely changed the ending to that Drew Barrymore/Jimmy Fallon movie, Fever Pitch.

I love you!.....zzzzzzzzzaaaaaaaaaapppppp!!!!!

[DigitalC]

Article here (http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/blog/big_league_stew/post/Teen-fan-tasered-by-Phillies-security-after-runn;_ylt=AvO6CbQpHgb49F52pQ9yJokRvLYF?urn=mlb,238457).

I'm having a hard time deciding whether this is excessive or not. My instinct is to say yes. While I think people who decide to run on to the field are morons and asking for what they get (most of the time), the use of a type of force that has sometimes proven unintentionally deadly strikes me as going a bit far. On the other side, perhaps if your average drunk fan thinks he might get more than just tackled, he might reconsider whether charging the field sounds like a lot of fun.

So what do you folks think? Is a taser too much? Most fans are just looking for a minute of fame in a game that could use a distraction, but I'm also reminded of the tennis player (I've forgotten who it was, now) that was stabbed by a fan running on to the court. If you think a taser is overdoing it now, would you change your mind if a player was actually injured (or worse) by a fan getting loose on the field?

Like you said, people have already been injured by a fan getting lose on the field. Absolutely no problem with this. People have died from hard tackles also, a broken neck could happen from any hard jolt.

[Drunky Smurf]

I don't think a tasering is too much. It might help to curb other idiots from running onto the field.

[handsomeharry]

Initially, I would think that it was excessive, but, upon remembering the Seles thing, I'd say blast the doof.

Best wishes,
hh

[RTFirefly]

The point of tasering people is to avoid having to shoot them instead. It's not something that was intended for subduing people who didn't represent a meaningful risk to life and limb.

So if there's no reason to shoot someone if you don't have a taser in hand, there's no reason to tase them either. So yeah, this is excessive.

[Alpha Twit]

This would have completely changed the ending to that Drew Barrymore/Jimmy Fallon movie, Fever Pitch.

This would be a vast improvement IMHO.

Asimovian, you make the case that tasering may be excessive, fair enough. In your opinion, what is the correct response by the security force toward an apparently unarmed and not obviously dangerous trespasser that does not obey verbal instructions? Pepper spray him? Gang tackle him? Continue to attempt to reason with him? Ignore him?

[Gagundathar]

<MeanSpiritedJerk>The only thing I didn't like about this was the fact that when he got tased, he blacked out. It would have been epic if he had writhed there for a while. And if a mike was nearby, then his incoherent croaks and moans would have been even funnier!</MeanSpiritedJerk>

[Skammer]

There was also the baseball umpire who got the shit kicked out of him by two fans (father and son) at a White Sox game a while back. Tasering is too good for them.

[ShibbOleth]

The point of tasering people is to avoid having to shoot them instead. It's not something that was intended for subduing people who didn't represent a meaningful risk to life and limb.

So if there's no reason to shoot someone if you don't have a taser in hand, there's no reason to tase them either. So yeah, this is excessive.

Yeah, but he's a Phillies fan. Did you consider that?

[pbbth]

So what do you folks think? Is a taser too much? Most fans are just looking for a minute of fame in a game that could use a distraction, but I'm also reminded of the tennis player (I've forgotten who it was, now) that was stabbed by a fan running on to the court. If you think a taser is overdoing it now, would you change your mind if a player was actually injured (or worse) by a fan getting loose on the field?


Wow. Suddenly having my metal container of sunscreen taken from me at the US Open last year makes a lot more sense. Not that you can stab somebody with it or anything but that it could be thrown at a player seems like a much bigger deal now.

[Marley23]

The point of tasering people is to avoid having to shoot them instead. It's not something that was intended for subduing people who didn't represent a meaningful risk to life and limb.
Anybody who runs out onto the field at a game is a total dumbass, but I reluctantly have to agree here. (What I would really like to see is for the player to start nailing these guys. They're pro athletes for one thing, and for another, running out onto the field only to have your hero punch you in the head would be a real deterrent.) Tasers are not supposed to be compliance tools that are used when a cop decides you are not complying fast enough. They're supposed to be a humane alternative to clubbing or shooting someone. Unfortunately they're very convenient to use and don't do lasting harm to people who are not on crystal meth, so they keep getting used in a lazier and lazier manner.

Oh, right -- Monica Seles was the tennis player that got stabbed (http://tennisplanet.wordpress.com/2007/03/04/tennis-player-stabbed-on-the-court-monica-seles/).
Gunther Parche didn't run out onto the court and make a scene, though. He crept up to the railing, jumped over it, ran to Seles' chair and stabbed her. That's different from an idiot kid who is horsing around. If these guys get near any players or do something threatening, go ahead and give them a shock for me. But if they're just being stupid, it's not necessary. What really bothers me is that there are now guards on tennis courts because of the Seles incidents, but when people jump onto the court, they don't do anything. For example, at the French Open last year, a guy jumped out of the stands and ran up to Roger Federer. Nobody did anything. (Federer should have given him a forehand to the skull but I guess he was too surprised.) He tried to put a hat on Federer, and eventually security got him. I think he's looking at some jail time. But if he'd been a lunatic who was there to hurt one of the players, he would have been completely successful.

[muldoonthief]

The point of tasering people is to avoid having to shoot them instead. It's not something that was intended for subduing people who didn't represent a meaningful risk to life and limb.

So if there's no reason to shoot someone if you don't have a taser in hand, there's no reason to tase them either. So yeah, this is excessive.

Why do you say that? If a cop is facing a lethal threat, they go for their gun, not their taser. The taser is supposed to take down people who aren't a lethal threat, without having to resort to nightsticks and the like. It decreases the risk to both the cop and the person being tased.

In this case though, while I'm all for tasing idiots, it seems like the overweight looking cop just got tired of chasing the guy. And he could easily have hit the other non-cop security guard in the blue shirt who looked like he was right next to the idiot.

[Machine Elf]

The point of tasering people is to avoid having to shoot them instead. It's not something that was intended for subduing people who didn't represent a meaningful risk to life and limb.

Wikipedia: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taser)

"Tasers were introduced as less-lethal weapons to be used by police to subdue fleeing, belligerent, or potentially dangerous subjects, often when what they consider to be a more lethal weapon would have otherwise been used."

The Chicago PD, for example (and plenty of others from what I've seen), abides by that as their rule of engagement for taser use: (http://chicagocriminalattorneysblog.com/2010/03/chicago-cops-a-taser-in-every-squad-car.html)

"According to the rules of engagement for Tasers, police may use the weapon if they are under attack or if a suspect is fleeing or otherwise resisting arrest."

The bozo on the field was fleeing and/or resisting arrest. If the other option is hand-to-hand combat that puts the arresting officer at risk of injury/death, I'll give him plenty of latitude when it comes to using a standoff weapon like the taser.

[Mooch]

Apparently this kid was stone cold sober and even called his dad for permission before running on the field (dad said NO). He learned his lesson the hard way. Should security have waited for the kid to start beating the shit out of some player not paying attention?

I say tase him, bro.

[Marley23]

"Tasers were introduced as less-lethal weapons to be used by police to subdue fleeing, belligerent, or potentially dangerous subjects, often when what they consider to be a more lethal weapon would have otherwise been used."
The company that makes the product is not going to restrict its use any more than necessary.

"According to the rules of engagement for Tasers, police may use the weapon if they are under attack or if a suspect is fleeing or otherwise resisting arrest."
Again, the department is going to let its members do what they want to providing it doesn't cause them problems. That doesn't indicate tasering this bozo was necessary.

Should security have waited for the kid to start beating the shit out of some player not paying attention?
You think the teenager was going to beat the shit out of one of the professional athletes? Security hadn't caught him but they did have him surrounded. He was not a danger to the players, who cleared way out of there.

[Vinyl Turnip]

Article here (http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/blog/big_league_stew/post/Teen-fan-tasered-by-Phillies-security-after-runn;_ylt=AvO6CbQpHgb49F52pQ9yJokRvLYF?urn=mlb,238457).

Cool. That second photo couldn't be a more awsum action shot if it was staged.

[Ravenman]

Is there some deal with Philadelphia baseball fans that make them run out onto the field? I went to one game at the Vet many years ago, and no less than five drunk guys at different times ran out onto the field. I've seen maybe two people run onto the field at all other baseball games I've been to.

I do not believe excessive force was used in this instance.

[kayaker]

I have no problem with tasering a fan who goes onto the field. Then again, I would get a kick out of the team mascot randomly tasering unsuspecting patrons in their seat. They could even include a disclaimer on the ticket, right under getting hit by foul balls, etc.

Imagine everyone watching the jumbotron during the 7th inning stretch, rooting for the mascot. Suddenly, you see your own face on screen. Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[DCnDC]

Is there some deal with Philadelphia baseball fans that make them run out onto the field? I went to one game at the Vet many years ago, and no less than five drunk guys at different times ran out onto the field. I've seen maybe two people run onto the field at all other baseball games I've been to.

I do not believe excessive force was used in this instance.

Philadelphians are just very ornery drunks. The city actually had a judge installed at the stadium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seamus_McCaffery) to handle rowdies on the spot.

[Gangster Octopus]

Tasering was the least dangerous option, honestly. And they were not trrying to subdue him, they were trying to catch him,w hich can be dangerous if he is tackled, to himself and to those doing the tackling. This is about as legitimate a use of tasering as I can think of.

[Mr. Greenjeans]

Philadelphians are just very ornery drunks.

And drunks from other places are the picture of class and decorum?

[Philster]

There was also the baseball umpire who got the shit kicked out of him by two fans (father and son) at a White Sox game a while back. Tasering is too good for them.

A first base coached was attacked.

[Mooch]

You think the teenager was going to beat the shit out of one of the professional athletes? Security hadn't caught him but they did have him surrounded. He was not a danger to the players, who cleared way out of there.

It makes no difference if they are pro athletes, they are employees at work. Do you want some yahoo running around your work when you have no idea what his intentions are? I think after the White Sox incident here a few years ago, security personnel are right to subdue fence jumpers as quickly as possible.

[Marley23]

It makes no difference if they are pro athletes, they are employees at work. Do you want some yahoo running around your work when you have no idea what his intentions are?
Do you really think a 17-year-old is going to beat the shit out of a professional baseball player? I'm assuming you know what Ryan Howard looks like. Or for that matter (since I think this guy was in left field) Raul Ibanez.

I think after the White Sox incident here a few years ago, security personnel are right to subdue fence jumpers as quickly as possible.
Yes, they are. But again, those guys jumped the fence, charged the base coach, and attacked him. Taser them, no problem. A guy running around on the outfield is an idiot who should be arrested, but is not a threat. Take him down, and if he makes a threatening move toward someone, go ahead and Taser him.

[silenus]

Anybody who jumps onto the field should be tasered, then neutered. Right then, behind second.

[Mooch]

A guy running around on the outfield is an idiot who should be arrested, but is not a threat. Take him down, and if he makes a threatening move toward someone, go ahead and Taser him.

Wouldn't taking him down be more dangerous to both parties than a tasering?

I don't want to be tasered for sure, but then again I am able to watch a baseball game from my seat no problemo.

[muldoonthief]

Is there some deal with Philadelphia baseball fans that make them run out onto the field? I went to one game at the Vet many years ago, and no less than five drunk guys at different times ran out onto the field. I've seen maybe two people run onto the field at all other baseball games I've been to.


When I was a kid, I was at a Phils game at the Vet and a woman jumped the fence, then took her top off as she ran the bases. I believe that was my first "live" view of a topless woman. And yes, she absolutely had the figure for it. She wasn't tased, but was escorted off the field by a fairly large contingent of cops, all making sure to keep their eyes on her so she couldn't escape.

[Marley23]

Wouldn't taking him down be more dangerous to both parties than a tasering?
I don't think so.

[Skammer]

A first base coached was attacked. Oh, right, I misremembered that it was the first base ump, but it was the coach. Not that it makes a difference.

[Markxxx]

I can see both sides. The problem is tasers are not as benign as people think. I mean on TV and movies, it's mostly comical, they guy get's tasered and his eyes roll back in his head and it's like a big joke. Which in the movies and TV it often is meant to be.

But in real life, tasering can be very serious. I would think there must be some other way besides a taser to stop fans. Perhaps I'm wrong, in this case, yes then a taser would be fine.

[Asimovian]

Asimovian, you make the case that tasering may be excessive, fair enough. In your opinion, what is the correct response by the security force toward an apparently unarmed and not obviously dangerous trespasser that does not obey verbal instructions? Pepper spray him? Gang tackle him? Continue to attempt to reason with him? Ignore him?I'm actually not trying to make the case that tasering is definitely excessive. I was trying to make an argument for and against. Marley23, for example, seems to be taking the position that this guy was a kid and clearly no threat, so something less potentially harmful should have been used. But I don't think I'm of the same mind. The Seles incident and others referenced in this thread make me think that stopping someone before they could possibly do harm isn't necessarily a bad thing. Lord knows I've managed to smuggle things into stadiums that were against the rules. Just because Ryan Howard is a big guy doesn't mean he isn't vulnerable to being attacked.

[Cat Whisperer]

Part of me thinks this kid got the best lesson of "actions and consequences" of his life.

[Telemark]

Do you really think a 17-year-old is going to beat the shit out of a professional baseball player?
Dustin Pedroia is what, 5' 7" and 145 lbs? No professional baseball player (or any athlete) should have to risk his career to subdue a rowdy fan or being attacked by one.

I have absolutely no problem with tasering a fan running around a playing field. This is class A stupidity and a taser is IMO a perfectly reasonable and proportionate response.

[Gangster Octopus]

They know nothing about this person running on the field. Is he 17? Is he 27? Is he black belt? Is he off his meds? Is he on speed? They know zero about him except that he is running on the field where he isn't supposed to be and he is trying to avoid them. They did the right thing, IMO.

[Carl Corey]

Well, there was that streaker at the Super Bowl a few years back. He didn't get tased.

Matt Chatham (New England linebacker) knocked the streaker on his butt.

[crazyjoe]

I'm actually not trying to make the case that tasering is definitely excessive. I was trying to make an argument for and against. Marley23, for example, seems to be taking the position that this guy was a kid and clearly no threat, so something less potentially harmful should have been used. But I don't think I'm of the same mind. The Seles incident and others referenced in this thread make me think that stopping someone before they could possibly do harm isn't necessarily a bad thing. Lord knows I've managed to smuggle things into stadiums that were against the rules. Just because Ryan Howard is a big guy doesn't mean he isn't vulnerable to being attacked.

Yeah, I mean, if the guy was completely naked, I might say it was overdone...but how the heck is anyone to know if he was armed or not, or a danger of some type? And even an untrained little guy could put a professional athlete on the injured list. Not likely, but you're dealing with someone you pay millions of dollars to play sports, so you're likely going to want to be more protective.

Perhaps they should have announced over the loudspeaker that anyone rushing the field will be tased, but anyone who does something like this should expect to get manhandled and potentially injured. It's dumb, and you get your 15 minutes of fame, but it's like being on an episode of jackass....you're almost guaranteed to get hurt doing it, and if you don't, it was because something went wrong or you pussed out.

[Face Intentionally Left Blank]

Oh, right -- Monica Seles was the tennis player that got stabbed (http://tennisplanet.wordpress.com/2007/03/04/tennis-player-stabbed-on-the-court-monica-seles/).
I don't think the threat of a tasering is going to stop an attempt to stab someone. They've already gone round the bend, as they're attempting murder in public, on camera. Tasering could be useful in preventing an attack in progress, but it won't serve as a threat/example to keep the next person from trying it.

It would probably work somewhat better to keep folks from running around the field like a jackass, but I'm not sure that's an appropriate reason to do it. Then again, ppl seem to get tased at the drop of a hat these days, so why should this be different?

[Oakminster]

Yes, they are. But again, those guys jumped the fence, charged the base coach, and attacked him. Taser them, no problem. A guy running around on the outfield is an idiot who should be arrested, but is not a threat. Take him down, and if he makes a threatening move toward someone, go ahead and Taser him.

You do not know he's not a threat until he's in custody. The kid could have pulled a weapon out of his pants, or otherwise endangered players, fans, umpires, and/or security personnel attempting to subdue him. I have no problem with him being taken down, whether via taser or other non-lethal method.

Oddly enough, from the link, it appears the Phillies are not pleased about the use of a taser.

[nivlac]

From the video it just looks like an unarmed kid running around having fun. There were enough security guys to take him down. Yeah, no need to taser IMO. I bet all those who favored tasering would feel differently had the kid suffered some permanent damage or was killed. Tasers aren't as safe as you think. Just ask Cecil (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2865/how-dangerous-are-tasers).

[Asimovian]

I bet all those who favored tasering would feel differently had the kid suffered some permanent damage or was killed. I don't know that I agree. I think it would have been very sad if someone performing a relatively harmless prank was seriously injured or killed, but as has already been pointed out, a simple tackle and someone falling the wrong way could produce the very same results. People assume certain (foolish) risks when they brazenly break the law. I would have been sad had he truly been hurt just for being dumb, but I don't think I would have faulted the taser.

[Oakminster]

From the video it just looks like an unarmed kid running around having fun. There were enough security guys to take him down. Yeah, no need to taser IMO. I bet all those who favored tasering would feel differently had the kid suffered some permanent damage or was killed. Tasers aren't as safe as you think. Just ask Cecil (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2865/how-dangerous-are-tasers).

Not me. Kid was stupid, and assumed the risk of injury when he ran on the field. It would be sad if he died or was seriously injured, but he has no one to blame but himself.

[nivlac]

I don't know that I agree. I think it would have been very sad if someone performing a relatively harmless prank was seriously injured or killed, but as has already been pointed out, a simple tackle and someone falling the wrong way could produce the very same results. People assume certain (foolish) risks when they brazenly break the law. I would have been sad had he truly been hurt just for being dumb, but I don't think I would have faulted the taser.
Difference is that in the history of stupid people who've gone onto the field (a grass field by the way) and subdued by security without tasers not a single one has sustained serious injury. From the news, quite a number of people have gotten seriously hurt or killed by tasers in other situations. I think a good rule of thumb by law enforcement is to use the minimum force necessary to subdue a perp. In this case I wouldn't had even minded if security had chased him all over the field until the nut job tires himself out.

[Mr. Miskatonic]

All those baseball bats lying around and the kids gets tasered? He's lucky.

[Peremensoe]

You do not know he's not a threat until he's in custody. The kid could have pulled a weapon out of his pants, or otherwise endangered [people]...

Yeah, and he could have done that without running on the field, too. Should security routinely put the taser on people who get obnoxious in the stands, because they might be about to threaten someone?

No, I agree with the premise that if the taser is to be used at all, it should be a step-down from pulling the gun on a clearly dangerous person, not a step-up from a tackle of a not-apparently-dangerous person.

Oddly enough, from the link, it appears the Phillies are not pleased about the use of a taser.

I bet they're not! Despite some voices here and on some baseball sites saying right on, I'm pretty sure that on balance this is bad publicity for the Phillies. Philadelphia teams have been trying to get away from the bad-behavior rep for years; the fact that a fan was zapped is going to suggest to a lot of people that it's a rowdy place with heavy-handed security, and it won't appeal.

[Asimovian]

I think a good rule of thumb by law enforcement is to use the minimum force necessary to subdue a perp.I'll go ahead and ask, with full admission that I've never worked in law enforcement: how does one determine, in the heat of the moment, what the "minimum force necessary" is for a given situation?

[Magiver]

Do you really think a 17-year-old is going to beat the shit out of a professional baseball player? I'm assuming you know what Ryan Howard looks like. Or for that matter (since I think this guy was in left field) Raul Ibanez.
Yes, I think a 17 year old is quite capable of hurting someone. You obviously never played roshambo as a kid.

I suppose they could have tackled the kid but the taser is probably the least violent way of apprehending him.

What is your solution?

[Thudlow Boink]

I suppose they could have tackled the kid but the taser is probably the least violent way of apprehending him.

What is your solution?A lasso.

[Oakminster]

Yeah, and he could have done that without running on the field, too. Should security routinely put the taser on people who get obnoxious in the stands, because they might be about to threaten someone?



The difference is that this kid was in the process of committing a criminal act, resisted arrest and failed to obey the officer's instruction to stop (I assume the officer gave such an instruction), putting himself and others at risk of bodily injury.

Your obnoxious fan in the stands is doing none of those things. If that fan commits a crime, and resists arrest, I have no problem with an officer tasering or otherwise subduing him, either.

Street Smarts 101: Resist arrest = ass kicking.

[mhendo]

What I would really like to see is for the player to start nailing these guys. They could take a leaf out of Australian cricket player Andrew Symond's book. Check out what he did to a guy who ran onto the field:

Note: NSFW, which is the reason that i've made it a plain-text link. The person invading the pitch was naked.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jA-xNzUFF_I&feature=related

Anyway, you know what i think would be the best course of action in cases like this? Have all the players and umpires start walking off the field, and make an announcement over the PA system that the game will be suspended until the trespasser turns himself in to the police. Once they realize that there won't be an exciting chase, and that the game is going to be delayed, the fans will start booing him rather than cheering him. Once he realizes that 40,000 people are pissed off, and that no-one is chasing him and that he's not a hero, the idiot will probably stop.

That said, i don't have too much of a problem with the tasering in this case. Hell, all Philly sports fans should be tasered on spec anyway.

[Oakminster]

And if I'm the owner, I really don't want my players risking injury battling trespassers. The player costs me a helluva lot more than an army of security guys.

[Peremensoe]

The difference is that this kid was in the process of committing a criminal act, resisted arrest and failed to obey the officer's instruction to stop (I assume the officer gave such an instruction), putting himself and others at risk of bodily injury.

Now it's "in the process of committing a criminal act"? Earlier it was "could have pulled a weapon out of his pants, or otherwise endangered..." At least now he's getting zapped for what he did, rather than what he might do.

Your obnoxious fan in the stands is doing none of those things. If that fan commits a crime, and resists arrest, I have no problem with an officer tasering or otherwise subduing him, either.

There's a difference between "tasering" and "otherwise subduing."

In fact I did mean fans in the stands who were violating the same Phillies "guest code of conduct" which this kid was breaking, and which the purchase of the ticket legally obligates them to follow (according to the very fine print on the back).

Attendees at Phillies games are thus required by law to
refrain from conduct that is inconsistent with the fun, family atmosphere that should prevail at Citizens Bank Park and the Citizens Bank Park experience, including but not limited to: interfering with other guests' ability to enjoy the game; using foul or abusive language or gestures; appearing to be in a drunken or diminished capacity; failure to produce a ticket on request or sitting in a seat for which a ticket is not held; possession of balloons, beach balls, nets or laser pointers; interfering with a ball in play; and throwing objects on or entering the playing field. Violators are subject to ejection and possible arrest.

Let the volts fly! :eek:

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

The point of tasering people is to avoid having to shoot them instead. It's not something that was intended for subduing people who didn't represent a meaningful risk to life and limb.

So if there's no reason to shoot someone if you don't have a taser in hand, there's no reason to tase them either. So yeah, this is excessive.

I'm in favor of it. Otherwise shit like this can happen: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/baseball/news/2002/09/19/royals_whitesox_ap/

[tumbleddown]

I stand by the credo that tasers are alternatives to guns, not alternatives to a well-placed body tackle. If you can't run well enough to chase someone down and subdue them (and that cop or security guard had a gut on him) then you shouldn't be working in an enforcement capacity, and certainly shouldn't be using electrical devices to do your job for you.

[Oakminster]

Now it's "in the process of committing a criminal act"? Earlier it was "could have pulled a weapon out of his pants, or otherwise endangered..." At least now he's getting zapped for what he did, rather than what he might do.


Yes, trespassing is a crime. It can also be a tort. In this instance, the criminal version is relevant.




Attendees at Phillies games are thus required by law to




No. Obligated by contract. Not a criminal matter, as the Phillies lack any authority to enact criminal statutes. Breach the code of conduct, and they get to make you leave the stadium. If you commit a crime in the process, you are subject to arrest by the police. If you resist arrest, then you might get tased.

[Marley23]

Marley23, for example, seems to be taking the position that this guy was a kid and clearly no threat, so something less potentially harmful should have been used.
The fact that he's a kid is not relevant. Mooch asked if security should have "waited until the guy kicked the shit out of some ballplayer not paying attention" and I was pointing out that that's ridiculous. Security should respond immediately when someone comes out of the stands. I didn't think that was in dispute. Tasering them is not necessary unless they're a threat.

The Seles incident and others referenced in this thread make me think that stopping someone before they could possibly do harm isn't necessarily a bad thing.
If the guy does something threatening, they can go ahead and taser him and I won't mind. But what I said earlier is there is not much of a comparison between this moron and the stabbing, or for that matter, the attack on the Royals coach. This guy (like other idiots who run out onto ballfields) was aimlessly running around the field and trying to get away from security. Parche walked out of the stands with a knife and stabbed Seles. He didn't meander and he was carrying a weapon. This guy was an idiot but showed no intent to injure anyone. People who run out onto the field are usually just morons and not psychos. The typical method of chasing them down or tackling them works fine.

Dustin Pedroia is what, 5' 7" and 145 lbs? No professional baseball player (or any athlete) should have to risk his career to subdue a rowdy fan or being attacked by one.
Who said he has to risk his career? I said it would be funny if the players knocked these guys on their asses. I didn't say they're obliged to do it. They have security guards for a reason. Incidentally, tennis did not have real security when Seles was stabbed, and instituted new measures in response. And like I was saying about the Federer incident, what they do have may not be sufficient now.

Yes, I think a 17 year old is quite capable of hurting someone.
He said "kicked the shit out of," not hurt.

What is your solution?
My solution is to keep tackling or running them down, which has worked just fine for approximately forever. If the jerk makes a threatening move toward a player or anybody else, go ahead and Taser them. But it shouldn't be a first resort.

[BigT]

I don't get why some people think getting hit with excruciating, full-body pain is superior to other methods that might leave a small amount of damage. If the pain is bad enough to make the kid pass out, that's too much. Wouldn't you rather be bruised for a little while versus one second of torture (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/25/national/main3537803.shtml)?

[AClockworkMelon]

I hope I have the courage to say "Don't tase me, bro!" whenever I see a cop. Comic gold.

And BigT, when I saw you were the last poster, I expected you to be supporting the tasering of these jackholes. As it happens, I agree with what you did post.

[kayaker]

Have any of you been to Philadelphia? I lived there for a short time. Getting tasered is about the least unpleasant experience you can expect to experience at a ballgame.

[raindog]

A(What I would really like to see is for the player to start nailing these guys. They're pro athletes for one thing, and for another, running out onto the field only to have your hero punch you in the head would be a real deterrent.)
Ask and you shall receive. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdP2G7UtS9I)

[Marley23]

Ask and you shall receive. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdP2G7UtS9I)
Good times.

[Telemark]

If the guy does something threatening, they can go ahead and taser him and I won't mind.
IMO, running out on the field is, by default, threatening.

[Marley23]

IMO, running out on the field is, by default, threatening.
But it isn't. We've thought of what, two examples where someone who entered the field did something harmful? This idiocy probably happens a hundred times a year in baseball alone. It's stupid and the (usually drunk) morons who do it deserve to spend some time in jail and get fined. Security should stop them. But let's not pretend there's something threatening about it.

[fluiddruid]

I stand by the credo that tasers are alternatives to guns, not alternatives to a well-placed body tackle. If you can't run well enough to chase someone down and subdue them (and that cop or security guard had a gut on him) then you shouldn't be working in an enforcement capacity, and certainly shouldn't be using electrical devices to do your job for you.That seems unfair. A cop should just be able to run someone down and subdue them, no matter what? Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised at all if even a fit cop, especially in all his gear (including, potentially, body armor) couldn't always outrun a teenage boy. I'm not going to armchair this one but be reasonable.

[Telemark]

But let's not pretend there's something threatening about it.
We have examples of it being threatening, including the base coach getting beaten up and a tennis player being stabbed. While we don't know if any particular person on the field is a threat, I have no problem making a blanket statement that guards will treat anyone on the field as a threat and will act accordingly. I see no reason to assume otherwise.

[Marley23]

We have examples of it being threatening, including the base coach getting beaten up and a tennis player being stabbed.
At this point those two are the only examples we have of it being threatening. It's reason for security to be vigilant, but it's not a reason to taser all of these guys because the evidence does not support the idea that they are all threats.

While we don't know if any particular person on the field is a threat, I have no problem making a blanket statement that guards will treat anyone on the field as a threat and will act accordingly. I see no reason to assume otherwise.
There's no reason to assume they're a threat because we have an infuriatingly large sample size to judge from. Almost all of these people run around stupidly until they get arrested, and that's all they do. Tasering should be reserved for someone who gives an indication of being a threat, such as having a weapon or approaching a player. Your typical idiot on the field doesn't do those things. Having a weapon speaks for itself, and since the players usually give them a wide berth, you can tell if they are approaching and something is wrong. I'm not advocating a wait and see approach where security stays on the sidelines.

[YogSosoth]

I'm of two opinions here: what I want to be done and what I think should be done

I listen to Colin Cowherd on ESPN radio on the way to work and even though sometimes I find him to be a condescending jackass, he occasionally makes very good points that I agree with. He's like a less douchey version of Jim Rome, who tries to be an asshole all the time.

Anyway, Colin and I both agree that tasing should be permitted and ought to be used more often. He made the point that the deaths are rare and a lot less risky than if you shot the guy or hit him in the head with a nightstick or choked him out. And though I've never been tased, most people I've seen on TV who get tased shake it off after a few seconds. With mace, they'll still be feeling it in their eyes an hour afterwards. Plus, it gets people to stop acting like idiots really quick, from a range, and is less dangerous for the cop. So I think tasing should be done.

However, I want people to run on the field. I think baseball is boring, so anything to liven things up is ok. Yes, Monica Seles got stabbed and yes, that old baseball manager was attacked by those 2 idiots a couples years back, but just as people excuse the tiny instances where tasing is lethal, actual attacks like the above is simply a remote and tiny possibility. So what I want is that people be chased like one of those British comedy videos with that saxaphone riff, and having fat security guards run around trying to catch these people. Or have a pitcher throw a 90mph into the heads of these guys. And I want this shown on TV, none of this "let's not give them publicity" shit. And afterwards, the reporters should interview these guys to see what they were thinking and why they were doing it. That's what I want.

[Cat Whisperer]

In discussing the potential threat of someone running onto the field, I notice the use of the words, "usually," "almost all," "probably" - I wouldn't want to be the security guard working the day a fan who "usually" is harmless hurts a professional athlete. I have no doubt that the rule in security guard work at major league stadiums is take them down ASAP, by whatever means necessary.

Now, if they added ravenous wolves to stadiums, THEN we'd see some by-God entertainment!

[Anamorphic]

I, for one, would like to hear Morganna The Kissing Bandit's opinion on the subject.

[Gatopescado]

I think this is the perfect use of a taser.

[Magiver]

My solution is to keep tackling or running them down, which has worked just fine for approximately forever. If the jerk makes a threatening move toward a player or anybody else, go ahead and Taser them. But it shouldn't be a first resort.

Your answer means you think getting tackled is less severe than being tasered. I challenge that premise. It's not easy to bring someone down who doesn't want to go down. There's a reason why football players wear all that gear. It hurts to get tackled. You are essentially getting your "bell rung" each time.

A taser can be used in short bursts to effectively stop the running motion. There is a point of no-return where it's continued use after the subject has dropped is punitive.

Each situation is different. If a subject drops but then goes on to punch and kick then continued use is warranted. It's dependent on the behavior of the person resisting arrest as to how extensive the tasering event is.

[Oakminster]

There's no reason to assume they're a threat because we have an infuriatingly large sample size to judge from. Almost all of these people run around stupidly until they get arrested, and that's all they do. Tasering should be reserved for someone who gives an indication of being a threat, such as having a weapon or approaching a player. Your typical idiot on the field doesn't do those things. Having a weapon speaks for itself, and since the players usually give them a wide berth, you can tell if they are approaching and something is wrong. I'm not advocating a wait and see approach where security stays on the sidelines.

The problem with that approach is we never know, in the heat of the moment, whether the guy is just another jackass, or if he's the 1-in-however many that are actually dangerous. Maybe he's got a gun, knife, spray can of bio weapon, scale model nuclear device, bomb-belt, whatever.

Everybody knows running on the field is not allowed. I have no problem with presuming ill intent and reacting accordingly. The jackasses of the world have only to stay the hell off the field, and they won't get tased.

[Marley23]

I challenge that premise. It's not easy to bring someone down who doesn't want to go down.
I don't think wrapping somebody up (or sticking out a leg) is actually that difficult. Security guards all around the country have figured out a method.

There's a reason why football players wear all that gear. It hurts to get tackled.
Particularly if you're doing it dozens of times a game... which doesn't apply here.

The problem with that approach is we never know, in the heat of the moment, whether the guy is just another jackass, or if he's the 1-in-however many that are actually dangerous. Maybe he's got a gun, knife, spray can of bio weapon, scale model nuclear device, bomb-belt, whatever.
And yet as people continue to run out onto the field during sporting events, the guys with knives continue to be extremely rare - some other examples are mentioned here (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/baseball/news/2002/09/19/royals_whitesox_ap/) - and the bioweapon and a-bomb guys continue to not exist at all. Based on the data we have, are we allowed at some point to draw a conclusion about the people who do this and the likelihood of various events happening? Or are we required each and every time to imagine a series of increasingly unlikely scenarios and treat them as possibilities to justify the strongest possible reaction? It seems like you're proposing the latter. I can imagine a lot of things happening, but I have a handle on what's likely and what isn't.

And for that matter the idea of a guy on the field with a bioweapon or a nuke or a bomb is ridiculous- those guys wouldn't be running out on the field. The field is the least populated area in the entire stadium. Knives occasionally happen. And if someone runs at a player with a knife (or just his fists), I'm fine with having security do whatever they need to including use of a taser. Regardless of whether or not the runner appears to be armed, security always responds immediately and there is still usually a delay in which, if the guy was going to hurt someone, he would be able to do it anyway. If you watch the video of this idiot in Philadelphia, though, you can see he's not making a threatening move. He runs away from security for a few seconds, but that's all he does. If he was going to hurt someone, he could have anyway.

[ducati]

I'll go ahead and ask, with full admission that I've never worked in law enforcement: how does one determine, in the heat of the moment, what the "minimum force necessary" is for a given situation?

Former LEO here.

Fair question.
Answer: training and experience.
Yes, any given idiot who runs onto the field/court/arena etc. is probably not there to do harm and will fold like a sheet once cops actually get a hand on them.

The problem is, one never knows the mind of the perp, and that kid was certainly capable of injuring a player or employee or cop. Tasers are a wonderful tool to reach out and stop a fight with the least possible injury to all involved.

It's so easy for you all to sit there and say how this should have been handled better, and pick on the cops for over-zealous behavior.
I say this simply as a statement of fact, not to pick a fight: Unless you've worn a badge, and tried to get someone to comply with your lawful orders who has absolutely no intention of doing so, you don't know what you're talking about.

Until you've tried to catch, fight, manage, and handcuff a person -10years old and up - without injuring them or you, you don't know what you're talking about.

Tase him, bro.

[Marley23]

It's so easy for you all to sit there and say how this should have been handled better, and pick on the cops for over-zealous behavior.
I don't think "you all" are saying that. It's just me.

Unless you've worn a badge, and tried to get someone to comply with your lawful orders who has absolutely no intention of doing so, you don't know what you're talking about.
Good thing I wasn't pretending to be a cop, then. Regardless, is there anything to this argument other than "it's justified because it makes the job easier?" It sucks for a security guard or a cop to risk injury to tackle an idiot or arrest a criminal, but then again, that's part of the job, isn't it? If you become a security guard or a police officer, you know that's a risk you are dealing with. Tasers are a good alternative to shooting or clubbing people, but tasering the idiot running around on the ballfield is a lot closer to tasering the mouthy grandmother at the traffic stop than it is to saving a life.

[Peremensoe]

No. Obligated by contract. Not a criminal matter, as the Phillies lack any authority to enact criminal statutes.

Nobody says they're enacting statutes. They and their ticket buyers make contracts, enforceable under the law if necessary. Should I have said "attendees are thus required by law to abide by the terms of the contract which obligates them to"?

Unless you've worn a badge, and tried to get someone to comply with your lawful orders who has absolutely no intention of doing so, you don't know what you're talking about.

Until you've tried to catch, fight, manage, and handcuff a person -10years old and up - without injuring them or you, you don't know what you're talking about.

Tase him, bro.

Hundreds (thousands?) of other police or security officers have successfully apprehended goofballs running on playing fields without injury and without tasers, so the taser clearly isn't the minimum force necessary for these situations.

I expect the Phillies (and other teams) will (or already have, now) instituted a no-taser policy for fans on the field. They might not publicize the policy, but they definitely don't want any more taser shots if they can avoid it, simply for publicity reasons.

Among other things, the excitement of the first incident has already led to a copycat at the very next game (http://gothamist.com/2010/05/05/another_phillies_fan_crashes_field.php?gallery0Pic=2). No taser needed this time; the article also notes that police who work Yankees and Mets games do not carry tasers at all.

[Magiver]

Particularly if you're doing it dozens of times a game... which doesn't apply here.
Have you ever been tackled? What makes you think this is less painful than getting tasered?

[AClockworkMelon]

Have you ever been tackled? What makes you think this is less painful than getting tasered?I haven't been tackled or tasered. If I had to choose one, I'd definitely take the tackle.

[Magiver]

Hundreds (thousands?) of other police or security officers have successfully apprehended goofballs running on playing fields without injury and without tasers, so the taser clearly isn't the minimum force necessary for these situations..Successfully apprehended does not mean pain free. It hurts to get tackled, it hurts to get piled on, subdued when struggling.

[Magiver]

I haven't been tackled or tasered. If I had to choose one, I'd definitely take the tackle. I've been tackled and I've been shocked (not tasered) by electrical devices that spasm a muscle. I'd rather fall from getting zapped than tackled.

[mhendo]

Have you ever been tackled? What makes you think this is less painful than getting tasered?I played rugby during my school days. I've been tackled plenty. I've never been tasered, but i've seen plenty of videos of it. I have also touched an electric fence designed for cattle.

Based on that limited knowledge, i can comfortably say that i would far prefer to be tackled than tasered.

[Peremensoe]

Successfully apprehended does not mean pain free. It hurts to get tackled, it hurts to get piled on, subdued when struggling.

No shit. I'm not saying these fools should be handled gently.

[Cat Whisperer]

<snip>
Until you've tried to catch, fight, manage, and handcuff a person -10years old and up - without injuring them or you, you don't know what you're talking about.

Tase him, bro.
I had my eyes opened to this a little bit when working as a lab tech - after about six months old, if someone doesn't want their blood taken, you're not getting it. Humans are surprisingly strong and wriggly.

[Snarky_Kong]

Unless somebody comes in here with cites for injury and death rates from both tasers and getting physically subdued, this is a pointless argument.

[Guinastasia]

Question -- by running on the field in the middle of a game -- wouldn't he also have been at risk for getting beaned by a ball?

[Doctor Who]

I had my eyes opened to this a little bit when working as a lab tech - after about six months old, if someone doesn't want their blood taken, you're not getting it. Humans are surprisingly strong and wriggly.That's why they invented restraint chairs.

[Telemark]

Question -- by running on the field in the middle of a game -- wouldn't he also have been at risk for getting beaned by a ball?
The ball is only in play for brief periods of time. The majority of the time the ball is being held and time is called as soon as a fan jumps on the field.

[Peremensoe]

Here's a list of 351 taser deaths (http://www.amnestyusa.org/uploads/ListOfDeaths.pdf) from June 2001-August 2008.

I think it's safe to say there have been a lot more hard tackles (counting football, rugby, police action, general mayhem) than taser shots in that time, and a lot fewer people killed by them. (Is that really arguable?)

Here's another way to look at it: most people who have been tackled hard are okay with the idea that it will happen again sometime. Very few people who have actually been hit with a taser ever want to do that again.

[Ají de Gallina]

They could take a leaf out of Australian cricket player Andrew Symond's book. Check out what he did to a guy who ran onto the field:

Note: NSFW, which is the reason that i've made it a plain-text link. The person invading the pitch was naked.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jA-xNzUFF_I&feature=related



Running naked towards Symmonds is asking for it. That was a proffesionally well-placed shoulder.

[kayaker]

Question -- by running on the field in the middle of a game -- wouldn't he also have been at risk for getting beaned by a ball?

or a 9 volt, in Pittsburgh.

[bengangmo]

Your answer means you think getting tackled is less severe than being tasered. I challenge that premise. It's not easy to bring someone down who doesn't want to go down. There's a reason why football players wear all that gear. It hurts to get tackled. You are essentially getting your "bell rung" each time.
.

Have you ever watched a game of Rugby?

How about League or AFL?

Have you ever played a contact sport at all?

One small guy against a number of larger (supposedly) fit guys is actually pretty easy to subdue unless he is crystal meth crazy. Hell, when I was playing Rugby I would bring down guys 10 - 15 kg heavier than me (as a 12 year old)

you will see 115kg 6'5" guys regularly being bought down by 90kg guys in Rugby, in very strictly controlled rules conditions, and injuries from tackles are a very small proportion of the total number of tackles made.

If the guards couldn't bring down a featherweight like this without serious risk to themselves they need to go back to security school and harden up.

[bengangmo]

I've been tackled and I've been shocked (not tasered) by electrical devices that spasm a muscle. I'd rather fall from getting zapped than tackled.

How many times in what sorts of situations?

Take a look at the Andrew Symonds video, for some of us this is a pretty typical representation of what should happen, and what would happen if the guard was halfway fit.

The nitwit on the field in this case was a teeny tiny wimpy 17 year old, if the guards can't catch him and bring him down, I have to wonder if its a result of some sort of "bubble wrap generation"

[Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party]

The use of the taser was completely disproportionate to the offence. The idea that a streaker or pitch invader should ipso facto be considered a threat to players on the pitch is absurd. Virtually every other nation on Earth manages to handle pitch invaders by tackling them to the ground and escorting them away, yet the American response is to presume he's a mortal threat and electrocute the guy.


I've been tackled and I've been shocked (not tasered) by electrical devices that spasm a muscle. I'd rather fall from getting zapped than tackled.


Seriously? I play as a front row in rugby every week and get smashed regularly. I'd prefer that any day to being electrocuted by a device that regularly makes people wet themselves, pass out and potentially induces a heart attack.

[kayaker]

the American response is to presume he's a mortal threat and electrocute the guy.

No one was electrocuted (at least in the cases under discussion.

electrocute [ɪˈlɛktrəˌkjuːt]
vb (tr)
1. to kill as a result of an electric shock
2. (Law) US to execute in the electric chair

[hankhill911]

Of COURSE this was excessive...it's just some idiot baseball fan, not a run-of-the-mill street thug

[Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party]

kayaker, meet informal English (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/electrocution), informal English, meet kayaker.

[kayaker]

kayaker, meet informal English (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/electrocution), informal English, meet kayaker.

informal — Denotes spoken or written words that are used primarily in a familiar, or casual, context, where a clear, formal equivalent often exists that is employed in its place in formal contexts. Compare similar tag colloquial.
I, for one, was hoping to remain formal. If you want to go all colloquial, that's fine.

[bengangmo]

The use of the taser was completely disproportionate to the offence. The idea that a streaker or pitch invader should ipso facto be considered a threat to players on the pitch is absurd. Virtually every other nation on Earth manages to handle pitch invaders by tackling them to the ground and escorting them away, yet the American response is to presume he's a mortal threat and electrocute the guy.




Well yeah, but then look how protected they need to be to play a simple game of football, and how many players exactly are there per team for all of what 7 minutes of actual play per game? Are you really surprised?

BTW - you a happy hooker or a prop?

[Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party]

Loosehead prop now. Played hooker for a few games at start of the season but my legs are too long and can't throw straight to save my life.

[RTFirefly]

I'm in favor of it. Otherwise shit like this can happen: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/baseball/news/2002/09/19/royals_whitesox_ap/How would a taser would have stopped that?

[RTFirefly]

Wikipedia: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taser)

"Tasers were introduced as less-lethal weapons to be used by police to subdue fleeing, belligerent, or potentially dangerous subjects, often when what they consider to be a more lethal weapon would have otherwise been used."

The Chicago PD, for example (and plenty of others from what I've seen), abides by that as their rule of engagement for taser use: (http://chicagocriminalattorneysblog.com/2010/03/chicago-cops-a-taser-in-every-squad-car.html)

"According to the rules of engagement for Tasers, police may use the weapon if they are under attack or if a suspect is fleeing or otherwise resisting arrest."

The bozo on the field was fleeing and/or resisting arrest. If the other option is hand-to-hand combat that puts the arresting officer at risk of injury/death, I'll give him plenty of latitude when it comes to using a standoff weapon like the taser.Yeah, and he was on a playing field with walls and a very limited number of field-level exits. He was going to have trouble fleeing in a meaningful sense, and if by 'resisting arrest' you mean 'running away from the cops within the confines of the playing field,' you're talking about tasering someone simply because they're a nuisance and an aggravation.

I think you need better reasons than that to zap 50,000 volts through people. While as Marley23 pointed out, most people killed by tasering were apparently on drugs at the time, the fact is it can still kill people.

[What Exit?]

The kid is lucky he was only Tased and not tackled and sporting some broken ribs.

[ivan astikov]

The cops are lucky they wasn't in this stadium. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYmy0zr3WL8&feature=related)

[what do I type here]

You guys can argue all day about morals and cite supreme court decisions but the simple fact of the matter is, it's awesome when drunk jackasses get hurt by the police. I'm totally glad this happened and I hope it happens again.

[Thudlow Boink]

You guys can argue all day about morals and cite supreme court decisions but the simple fact of the matter is, it's awesome when drunk jackasses get hurt by the police. I'm totally glad this happened and I hope it happens again.Would it change your opinion any to know that this kid hadn't been drinking?

[silenus]

Then he's just stupid, which carries its own penalty.

[Cat Whisperer]

Then he's just stupid, which carries its own penalty.
As they say, it's too bad stupid isn't painful. Sometimes it is. :)

[Peremensoe]

So, some of the pro-taser people are arguing that getting zapped is not as bad as getting tackled, and the rest are reveling in how bad it is. :rolleyes:

[Magiver]

How would a taser would have stopped that?
Point at subject, pull trigger?

[RTFirefly]

Point at subject, pull trigger?If the cop's close enough and his reactions are that good, he could probably just tackle one of the two of them. Which is the number he'd be able to taser, too.

[RTFirefly]

So, some of the pro-taser people are arguing that getting zapped is not as bad as getting tackled, and the rest are reveling in how bad it is. :rolleyes:I don't know about reveling in it, but the fact is that people do die in the immediate aftermath of taser shocks - over 300 in the U.S. in the past decade (http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/report/tasers-potentially-lethal-and-easy-abuse-20081216). I doubt that anywhere near that number have died after being tackled by the cops.

If the taser doesn't fatally mess up the electrical currents that control your heartbeat, then as far as I can tell, it's unlikely to do you any permanent harm. But given the numbers, that's a pretty big 'if.'

It certainly shouldn't be used in any situation where a cop isn't concerned that anybody's in danger. The cops certainly shouldn't be allowed to use the taser just to control someone who's making their life difficult, but no worse than that.

[Translucent Daydream]

The point of tasering people is to avoid having to shoot them instead. It's not something that was intended for subduing people who didn't represent a meaningful risk to life and limb.

So if there's no reason to shoot someone if you don't have a taser in hand, there's no reason to tase them either. So yeah, this is excessive.

I came in here to say the same thing. When the Taser started being used by law enforcement, it was supposed to be a direct replacement for the service pistol.

I don't think they would have shot the dude in the same situation unless he was running with a knife. The line that you cross to shoot someone the juice is getting pushed closer and closer and closer, to the point where an argument with a police officer can get you Tazed. I don't think you would get shot for arguing with a cop.

[Larry Mudd]

Yes, I think a 17 year old is quite capable of hurting someone. You obviously never played roshambo as a kid.:confused: Is South Park corrupting your childhood memories?

In real life, "Reaux! Sham! Beaux!" is another name for "Rock, Paper, Scissors," and injuries sustained during this form of competition are exceedingly rare, even amongst juvenile males.