tazered teen? too much or no

[LuvCuteBoys]

If you take baseball that seriously, you need to step away. Its a game, to watch, for enjoyment.

So because it's "just a game", the safety of those playing it is unimportant?

 

[LuvCuteBoys]

I'd ALWAYS rather see the person breaking the law die than see the people trying to keep us safe die. A friend of mine is a widow because her State Trooper husband was shot and killed in the line of duty.

If this moron HAD died from the taser, then my response would have been "thank God he didn't hurt anyone first".

 

[GRUMPY PIRATE]

if everyone is "up in arms" about the kid getting a free reverse ekg, then how about the police department "deputize" some of the fastest college football tackles, and station five or six of them around the field in bright yellow outfits, with pads.

when little "look at me" kid decides to run on the field, release them for a quick tackle, from different directions.

heck you could even number the tackles, and have a lottery that if your guy makes the hit, you get a free beer or something!

 

[TheZue]

Tazering should be considered a potentially deadly force--better than shooting someone in some cases, but potentially deadly nonetheless. I would not risk an idiot kid's life for interrupting a game unless I thought he was a threat to others (for example, running around with a knife).

I think depending on the circumstance they can be lethal. We had an incident here that has gotten our airport a LOT of attention. Basically a Polish man got off a plane, got lost in our airport for 12 hours, they wouldn't confirm to him mother who was waiting that he was even on the plane so she drove home, they wouldn't bring in an interpreter. After 12 hours he was extremely agitated so somebody called the cops. They tased him five times withing 30 seconds of engaging him in intervals longer than recomended and he died. They then took the video a bystander took and tried to keep it until he got a lawyer. On the video you can hear them saying they were going to tase him before they even aproached him. This was a man who was exhausted, hungry, thirsty, and confused. Instead of bringing in somebody to help him (I still think he was trying to get attention to get help) they tased him again, and again, and again, and again, and again while he was already on the ground...then sat on his neck. When they figured out he was in distress they delayed on calling an ambulance. Most of the time in the hands of a competant police officer they are fine. These cops were anything but competant; one of them killed somebody within the year while driving drunk...he's still a member of the mounties. This thing has heavily tainted my view on tasers, but honestly I'm more concerned about our police force than the tasers...there have been a number of in custody deaths (including a young man who was arrested for having an open beer at a hockey game who got shot in the back of the head in his cell) that are questionable at best.

Also you have to remember that Taser International lobbies HARD when these things are investigated. They have attempted to quash large portions of the independant commision into the YVR death and tried since the begining to influence the results. I'm sure they are equally involved in all of those 300 deaths.

I just think that things can go wrong with these. So I answered other....in an ideal taser situation yes he deserved it. Overall I think they are a good tool in the right situation.

Don't taze me, bro!!!!!!!!!!!!

Seriously, he got what he deserved. BAZINGA.

That is still one of my favorite videos ever.

Unlike Amnesty International, I would not recommend the suspension of tasers. I think under the right circumstances, they save lives. I recall an incidence locally of an agitated, mentally disabled teen who was about to cut her own throat. She was tased and it saved her life. However, I think that it needs to be used under the absolutely appropriate circumstances.
http://www.amnestyusa.org/us-human-rights/taser-abuse/page.do?id=1021202

Dawn I agree 110%. A lot of it comes down the quality of the cop. You really have to wonder what they'd do if there wasn't a taser available in some of these cases.

 

[pansmermaidzlagoon]

we had a case here where an out of control officer used a tazer on a mom in front of her kids.

He thought she was on her phone, when she triwed to prove wrong, he wouldn't let her explain AND went on to make up a charge to cover his butt. He tasered her for no reason. He said she was resisting arrest - but it was all on his camera and she ended up with a nice settlement.He ordered her in the car, out of the car, in the car - tasered her and threw her on the ground in traffic. Said she was resisiting arrest because by the time he was done with her, she was afraid for her safety and finally decided she was better off in the car. I believe he also hauled her off leaving the kids alone in an open car on the side of the road - thankfully there was a game going on nearby - so parents came over - but strangers none the less.

you can argue both sides - but listening to some of you, people are presumed guilty until proven innocent and we can't really know what any one is gonna do - so we might just as well taser 'em all....the grannies and the moms being abused by an out of control moron officer......

there are good and bad cops. Hopefully the good ones stick to rules and use common sense. They need to be able to use a taser to protect themselves. For the bad ones - we need the rules about their use to also be strict enough that can not be used to cover their buts after they do something wrong or allow them the leniency to misuse them.

this case - I can almost see both sides, but IMHO it was misuse. I really don't see the he could have killed someone/ you don't know what he was gonna do.....

maybe it would help if the security guy was in better shape and could actually catch him!!!! There's a clue! Maybe he used the taser because he was simply embarrassed at the fact that he was never gonna catch him!!!

 

[FireDancer]

I think the concern for welfare is being misplaced. In the situation it isn't important what is less dangerous for the suspect it is important what is less dangerous for the police or security personnel.

While it is arguable which has a better chance of harming the suspect, a taser or tackling, it is pretty clear that zapping the suspect presented less harm for the officer and even if for that reason only was the right choice.

If you die doing something stupid, especially when said stupidity is criminal, it is Darwin reminding us of his theories.

 

[TheZue]

Sometimes it has nothing to do with the welfare of the officer though. I've seen videos of peaceful protesters who aren't fighting being tased because they won't get up and walk to the waiting police car. That has absolutely nothing to with police safety and absolutely is not a good use of the tool. There has been usage creep since it was introduced; I think it is often used to get people to comply quickly rather than avoid injury to either party.

A guy randomly running around on a secured playing field without consent arguably is a reasonable use because really we don't know what he is doing and being tackled has a risk of injury as well for him....but even in that case they aren't using to avoid injury to the police officer, it's to get a moron under control.

 

[castleview]

At first I thought they went too far, then I remembered Monica Seles and that poor first base coach that got the snot beaten out of him by the father-son couple.

 

[FireDancer]

Sometimes it has nothing to do with the welfare of the officer though. I've seen videos of peaceful protesters who aren't fighting being tased because they won't get up and walk to the waiting police car. That has absolutely nothing to with police safety and absolutely is not a good use of the tool. There has been usage creep since it was introduced; I think it is often used to get people to comply quickly rather than avoid injury to either party.

A guy randomly running around on a secured playing field without consent arguably is a reasonable use because really we don't know what he is doing and being tackled has a risk of injury as well for him....but even in that case they aren't using to avoid injury to the police officer, it's to get a moron under control.

While all of that may be true I am merely referencing this case or other cases of actual resistance. In this case the non-compliance of the suspect was in front of what, 30,000 people and another half a million watching at home?

There are situations when police officers, teachers, clergy, military personnel, and anyone else with a position of power takes advantage of said power but the cases have to be looked at in isolation and judged on the facts of those cases.

The lady in the case you posted about earlier has nothing to do with this case and vice versa. They are two different incidents with two different sets of circumstances. I don't think anyone is suggesting that the use of a taser is either always necessary or never necessary. The discussion is merely was it necessary in this case or other cases where someone has breached a barrier and is running around with the potential of casing harm to others.

 

[viking042900]

Which is probably why sports fans shouldn't be in charge off a taser. That said, what did the police do before there were tasers? Tasers are referred to less than lethal force. They next step in the hierarchy of escalation of force is a GUN. There have been more than a hundred deaths as the result of a taser. Was his stupid, ridiculous prank worth a potential death sentence if no one was a risk? I don't think so. Should he be prosecuted for malicious trespass? Yes, throw the book at him. That's what the courts are for.

Actually, the next step in the use of force in a lot of departments (including mine) is the baton or "night stick".

And since you ask, if a Taser wasn't available in this scenario, this guy would have been tackled by an officer after which several more of them would have been involved in getting him under control and cuffed. There's plenty of potential for serious injury there as well. I'd much rather take a 5 second ride on the Taser than get swarmed by 5 or 6 of my bretheren.

And I'll say it again in reference to the risk of death in relation to being Tased: There is just as much, and probably more, risk of death or grave injury involved in a hands on confrontation with police (and no, I'm not talking about him catching a beating.) It's just that the focus right now is on the Taser.

 

[Luvchefmic]

So last week at a Phillies game a 19 year old young man jumped onto the field and did a keystone cops routine until he was tazered by the police.

Now Steve (young field runners) isn't getting much love for the folks here in Philly but we've booed santa claus so we're a tough crowd.

Did the police go to far?

I'm firmly on the cops side. I'm a season ticket holder for the Phillies and I get sick of fans acting like park apes.

I'm also a bit tired of people breaking the law and then crying "Woe is me" waa waaa waa. How about we don't break the law in the first place.
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/home...id=1&mr=1&92803649=Y&cid=8500281&pid=92803649

I'm with you...not a Phillies fan (moot point) but took the parts of your post that I 1000% agree with (hope you don't mind I bolded that part)

 

[Heidict]

351 deaths is 9 years? That's nothing.

Wow, talk about a cold and callous response.

 

[eliza61]

Wow, talk about a cold and callous response.

I'm sure she was talking statistically.

 

[Jennasis]

I'm sure she was talking statistically.

Thank you.

 

[MissMet]

No. They didn't go too far. I think if we tazed people more often, they'd stop acting like morons.

LOVE IT!

...and so true.

 

[viking042900]

Very true! In a lot of instances around here, all someone has to do is see the laser dot being flashed around in their vicinity and they stop whatever it was they were doing immediately. Keeps an situation from getting ugly in a heartbeat.