not surprised they used the taser, it must be kind of humiliating for the security when fans get loose on the field and they are stumbling around trying to catch them, all the while the crowd is cheering it on

No criminal decides whether they get shot with a taser. The onus is on the cops. They're the ones with the guns, so they have to make the call. Should they use potentially lethal weapons willy-nilly on the basis that they're designed to be non-lethal. What if this kid had been hopped up on amphetamines? Tase him, he suffers cardiac arrest or whatever, dies. Congratulations, you just killed a kid to save time. Not save lives, not save property, to save time.


So all crimes are equal then? No matter what you did you should be stopped by any means possible? The kid jumped a fence and ran around for a while, he doesn't deserve to be treated in the same way as the knife-wielding berserker maniac. He wasn't hurting anybody, it doesn't look as if he was about to hurt anybody. Would it have killed them to take five minutes longer to catch him? He wasn't going anywhere.

No problem with it, dont want to get tasered then dont jump the fence, rush past gaurds and run arouund the field. He should have though of the consequences, if I punch someone and get the crap beat out of me its my fault, because I was irresponsible.

Deserved to be has nothing to do with it.
If you engage in activity that has illegal ramifications, expect to deal with the consequences of your actions. The world does not give a damn about deserved.
If we all got what we deserved, half of us wouldn't be here.
Roy, there is such as thing as personal responsiblity. There is no excuse for not practing it, people can defend this darwin award wanna be baseball fan, but there were consequences to his actions.
He climbed a barrier, errected there, common sense should have driven the point home in the vast recesses of his empty mind that he DID NOT BELONG ON THE FIELD.
Wlaking down the street is n ot breaking any law. Climbing a barriacade into private property is, especially when a game is going on.

I kinda agree with this, and again I am worried that tasers and things are turning into some kind of security duct tape.

Security could slip up, or not be on top of their game, or not be able to apprehend someone, but it's okay, they have a taser that can put them down without causing any harm to the person (most of the time).

Teach them some jujutsu or something.



Yet the punishment must still fit the crime.

Again, there are people in prisons RIGHT NOW being subjected to inhumane things that are disproportionate to their crimes. Should we all just say, "yeah, you were sentenced to 10 years, but along that time you will be violently or sixually assaulted, you might have to deal with injuries or diseases that will affect you long after your 10 years is up, but you know what, those are the consequences of your actions. You shouldn't have stolen that car. Here is your cell mate, he's here for life because of repeated violent crimes. Enjoy your stay."



And there is personal responsibility of the security staff and police force as well, and they must take it as well.



So treat him like someone that doesn't belong there: stop him from running around, and escort him off.

No need to taze him like a violent offender and CARRY him off the field..... then again, he might escape and run away again, wouldn't want to the cops to look incompetent, now do we?



Keywords: in a violent neighborhood, where gang members look like average citizens. Also, in the other example, in Times Square, where there has already been a threat and someone running could be trying to escape. Context, context.

the not breaking the law or failure to listen to police



life saving operations also have a chance to kill people, its unusual but it happens... its still not murder though


if we do that i'm sure we will start talking about officers using their "jujutsu" on people with a rush of complaints of excessive force

A criminal forfeits that right when he engages in illegal activity.
At this point in teh discussion, I think a taser was wrong, They should have used a baseball bat right upside the head, becasue as many thick skulls there as there are around nowdahys, it would have been less bothersome.

We are not talking about Draconian punishments meted out after trial, we are talking about apprehending a person that is committing a crime. The criminal in this case was not killed or seriously injured. He was put in pain for a while,w hich is what would have happened had he been decked sprayed with mace or pinned to the ground. The question is not what could have happened, but what did. The criminal was apprehended, without loss of life, quickly and efficiently. It may not have been the best way, but it was far from the worst.

What right or rights are you saying that a criminal forfeits? Just so we're on the same page.




:lol: no one has a bat in the outfield



Actually, I think what COULD have happened is VERY important.

Because if the precedent is set that "hey, trespasser meet taser", then suddenly all kinds of trespassing and relatively minor crimes could be met with tasers. "Hey, he could have been a killer, we just stopped him is all." This suddenly increases the chance that someone who is NOT in a good condition gets tased, the tasing worsens the condition or KILLS them.

We need to stop waiting for bad things to happen, and start trying to prevent bad things from happening, and to do that, we need to look at the way this could (or perhaps should, depending) have been handled, and handle future situations accordingly.

Oh boy, I sense a lock.

Tell that to http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=dc1a9cbe-bfde-4800-bd35-728f5f1e14ac&k=558. Tasers should be the last option, before a gun, not an easy way to simplify a simple situation.

The kid was 17 years old, and they felt this was the only option? [censored] ridiculous!!!

Someone better lose their job over this. *looks at man with taser in hand*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taser_safety_issues Do I need to remind people, he was 17, and armed with nothing more than a towel. Since when do towels count for tazer authorization? Knife, gun, bat, pipe, ok, but a towel?

Are you taking into consideration that other events may have had ramifications on this incident?

Take the examples from kgork


There is a potential threat when someone does go onto the field. I'm sure the fans at this game found it humorous at first, the father and son duo rushing the field, but the intentions of the two fans were soon made clear

Again I raise the question should the police have to wait for an incident to become violent before using force? In the case where a person can be potentially be seen as dangerous and similar events have turned up that have been dangerous I would like to see the police act within the same manner in which they have acted in this incident.

I also want to call attention to the people who claim the police were "out of shape"

Keep in mind the time necessary to react to an event. I'm sure that this incident is in no way different from any other incident in which a person must respond to an incident which could have potentially fatal effects (by this I mean to the players, to a coach, to other security be it police or otherwise, or even to the person themselves ie there are dangers of a person running on a baseball field).

@wolfpup

How are we to be certain that he does not have concealed weapon?

Again refer to the post by kgork that states that a knife was found during the incident in kgork's article

He may have been wielding more than a towel luckily he wasn't and he was just acting foolishly and not out of malice

then it all comes down to "don't do stupid $#$@ to begin with"

That is the impasse we are at. I believe a taser is an appropriate way to deal with potentially dangerous tresspassers, you do not.

Many wouldn't agree with you on that. :shrug:

I argue they have a right not to be hurt, unless it's necessary in order to apprehend them. If it's necessary then yeah, go for it, but it's still unfortunate.

In this case it wasn't necessary, so yes, they violated his rights. It's simple. Is he kind of an idiot? Yes. Did he need to be removed from the field? Yes. But did they violate his rights in doing so? Yes. So does this mean the police officers made a mistake and should have some kind of disciplinary action? Yes.

I'm curious what rights did they violate?

A right not to be physically harmed without just cause?

They need to wait for signs of an incident, sort of like probable cause.

If they saw he had a weapon, was acting in a violent or potentially violent manner, was making threats, acted in ways that made it seem like he had a weapon ("I'm going to kill you all" *reaches into pocket*)

And this is exactly the kind of judgment call that I have been talking about. It is a hard call that law enforcement has to make, and it's one that we trust them to make, and it's a call that they must be held accountable for making.



That's the entire reason why the call is hard to make, and why I would never want to be in that position. Because a trespasser on the field could be a drunk kid or a potentially violent offender. But you can't say, "oh that dude last week was violent, let's just tase anyone who comes onto the field." That sort of preemptive "guilty until proven innocent" is exactly what the laws in the US are NOT about (or at least, not what they should be about)

While I respect the people who make the call, and understand that the call can be made wrong, they must still be held accountable for making the call, right or wrong.




Not wolfpup, but again, that's why the call is hard to make.

Do we treat all potential offenders equally, hoping to prevent a violent one but knowingly catching innocents in the net, or do we wait until we have clear signs of an attack, and risk people getting hurt?

I'm all for stopping violent attackers, but I will NOT compromise the rights of innocents.



I do not consider it appropriate given the dozens of other ways in which the situations can be handled. It seems like tasers are becoming a crutch.

If the kid was some psycho intending harm you would all be praising the officer for using a taser. The kid could of had a knife or weapon on him and since the officer did not know whether he did or not, it was best not to take chances.

He was resisting arrest which gives the police a right to apprehend a suspect with non-lethal force such as mace or taser

So, if he breaks the rules he should realise consequences, if I did that I expect police hostility. Harming him is merely a bi product of stopping him. There are other ways, but tasers are efficient.

I'm talking about rights, not laws. The two don't necessarily correlate. :shrug:

They had plenty of cause.He could of been dangerous to the players or fans.

Police hostility should NEVER be someone that anyone should expect.

Police are there to serve and PROTECT, to DEFEND innocents from criminals. And given that criminals are citizens (at least, in these types of situations) a citizen's and a criminal's rights must be protected. Which is why police have to walk that fine line between using the appropriate amount of force, but not ATTACKING the person committing the crime. It's a line that I personally couldn't walk, especially given all the scumbags out there. But if we are to keep the integrity of our laws, it's a line that must be walked.

The efficiency of tasers can lead to, I fear, a laxity with regards to what actions to take.

"Hey, should I get Billy to come help us get this guy?"
"Nah, don't worry about it, I'll just tase him, it'll be fine."

That will work until an innocent person dies. Then we have a real problem on our hands. Let's stop it before then.



Was this cause taken from his actions on the field?

Or was it taken from some other past events?

Cause must be drawn from the CURRENT situation. Otherwise you get into problems like stereotyping and things. And yes, that's hard to do, but it has to be done.

Sure, he COULD be dangerous. Then again, it COULD have been a publicity stunt for Red Bull. He COULD have been Jack Bauer running across the field to catch a terrorist dressed as a baseball player. But they have to wait for some kind of signs showing a violent intent before the up the level of force used. You have to wait, but you also have to apprehend before violence ensues.

Which was never produced! They jumped the gun, no question in my mind. (Just like the RCMP at YVR. They murdered him in my opinion!) Tasers are way over used. A study was done here in Canada, and they have been used in many instances that did not call for one.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2008/05/08/bc-kamloops-man-taser.html Ok, he had a knife. I'm sure he, at 82, could have leaped out of bed and cut all their throats in a blink of an eye. <_<

Police sat by and let a man cut up, and eat a man for 4 hours on a Greyhound bus awhile back. Yet they taser this poor old man in moments when I am sure they could have 'talked him down".

Talk about messed up priorities!!