But they do in this case since he was breaking the law

Police have rights as well and the law states that they have the right to apprehend a resisting suspect with necessary force to apprehend the suspect

@wolfpup

Agreed that there are instances in which police do not use the appropriate amount of force. Should this have been one of those incidents I would agree however, I believe that in this instance the police were well within their right to use the taser.

<3 <3 <3, Thisisntmyname and Ditre.


If this kid had been climbing a barricade and petted a tiger that bit his hand off people would be agreeing with his darwinism award.
Instead of tiger, it was a baseball game. He got tasered.
All those people who paid to see that game had their rights to a baseball game violated. No one wanted to see this kid get tasered. But they did. advlts and young children alike.
The baseball teams had their right to an uninterrupted game violated. Seems to me a lot of people like to go on about rights, until theirs are violated. Criminals are people too, until you are the victim.

The dude shooting the video sure did.



Criminals can become victims too.

Even after you're the victim.

Anyway, everyone agrees he needed to be apprehended. But ultimately he could've easily been apprehended without being tased, so in the end it was unnecessary. Why still justify it even after knowing they didn't need to do it? "They could've done it without tasing him... but I'm glad they did!" I mean, is it out of some kind of sweet satisfaction that an idiot is getting hurt, or what? I can't think of any other reason?

Just to let all of you know another fan ran on the field last night and he was not tased.I don't know if the same officer was present.

Yeah, I heard about that too.

What rights? The right to not be killed for what amounts to little more than a prank.


Indeed. I suggest we have a head-butting contest. Whoever wins that wins this argument. It'd save us all a lot of time.


If it's a question of what did happen as opposed to what could have, then what grounds did they use the taser on? He hadn't done anything yet, beyond skipping the fence and generally being annoying. Maybe you can accept using a weapon on somebody for something as trivial as trespass, but I cannot accept that as being the right course of action.

On an unrelated note, to allow me some perspective. If this was done as you say "quickly and efficiently", then why don't you think it was the best solution? What was the best solution, and what was the worst?


There may have been incidents in which the invader was violent, but there have been far more where they were simply looking for their fifteen minutes of fame. If we were to treat every situation as a worst-case scenario rather than an average case, then what rights does anybody have? Massacres have occurred when people were simply walking down the streets, but to treat every person on the street as being a potential mass-murderer is just being paranoid.


Good grief people, slow down. It takes me a long time to write a decent argument.

And enforce the law, this kid broke it, he was punished. If it was broken fo a good cause, I would support him,but it was broken out of stupidity and him wanting attention.


:wub:
Yeah if he jumped into a tiger cage people would be "Idiot what did he expect" the idiot is here, so is him jumping a barrier. The barrier is to keep people out, instead of being killed he got tasered, maybe this way he will learn thre is a reason people put up barriers.


If he is a victim because he commited a crime, its usually self inflicted, dont want to be punishedm, dont be a criminal.

It's not the job of law enforcement to punish.



Humans have reasoning abilities that tigers do not.



People who are sixually assaulted or violently attacked while in prison do not ask for that. They are given their sentence and serve their sentenced. Yet on a daily basis criminals do in fact become the victims, and receive punishments far beyond what the law has meted out for them. Is this "just"? Do criminals give up all rights? What about punishments that are inhumane? I think it is inhumane to not protect criminals from undue punishments and victimization.

He totally deserved it.

There are other incidents with tasering lately, where I side with the tasered person, but this was appropriate. Stupid kid.

yes but most of those people just walking down the street are not doing something illegal hence there is no reason to suspect their intentions

If he did hurt someone and the police had a chance to use their taser on him prior to the attack would you then advocate for them to use their tasers? Would you be on the side of the fence that said "why didn't the police do more when they could have prevented a crime?"

Yes, let's compare a tiger running on natural instincts with a "trained" (I use the term loosely!) officer.

The tiger has an excuse, the officer does not.

Tasers can kill, and should be the last resort, just before a gun. Not the first option simply because it's the easiest/simplest/fastest solution!

You do realize he evaded everyone for quite some time.Its not like the kid stepped on the field and was instantly taserd.Usually they would tackle him or whatever but for some reason they didn't.is the kid dead?No but he is in a hell of a lot of trouble.

And you would be an expert on the subject of when to use appropriate amounts of force? Or is this just your opinion on when a taser should be used?

Police, though I'm sure you would doubt it because of your extreme disdain for them which also makes you seem very biased towards them, are trained sufficiently (though I will concede to the point that not all of them follow this training and do use force excessively) in the use of lethal and non-lethal force much more than yourself

I don't know what sort of personal vendetta you have against police, and I'm sure there are instances which you can cite which will explain your distrust of them, however, there are (forgive the cliche) "good cops". Not all of them are out to get you, not all of them are coffee drinking donut eating lardasses that people in this thread are making them out to be.

Shouldn't have mattered if he was out there for 2 hours. A taser was overkill, period. Tasers/guns are for violent people! Not 17 year old kids making asses of themselves.

Maybe they need to hire security/police with some athletic skill instead of using the easy way out?

Which is why they couldn't apprehend a 17 year old kid without have to use a taser...........

:rolleyes:

You know damn well that there have been stereotypes of cops flying throughout this thread

perhaps the kid was in really good shape (which may very well be a possibility given that the kid is 17 years old)

that doesn't mean that the cops were lazy or fat. If you want to promote stereotypes go ahead be my guest. But please do it elsewhere

Common sense? See my previous post.

I have no vendetta, but I have been on the receiving end of a cop in a bad mood. Do I hold all cops responsible? No. I do dislike rogue/corrupt/power tripping cops!! (Like the one on Youtube kicking a man while down here in Victoria. He is known to be a violent cop, and keeps being put out on the street. The chief of police is under investigation currently to for other matters.)

So they knew it was just somebody making an ass of them self?

yes but is this cop on a power trip? Were the other cops on a power trip in the stadium or were they trying to apprehend the 17-year-old?

If they commenced to beating him and kicking him after he was down on the ground I'd agree with you but they didn't. They took him into custody and he is, I'm assuming, resting peacefully in his cell right now.

If you need to use a taser on a 17 year old kid swinging a towel, you're on a power trip.

Again, tasers are for violent people. Using one on a kid in this manner is, in my opinion, a complete abuse of power.

They were enforceing the law, if it says dont cross the barrier, you dont cross the barrier. Punishment here is a bi product of restraining him, the tazer stopped him, thats what their for. if they wanted to punish maybe officers should start carrying acid, one has the purpose of causing pain (acid) the other is meant to restrain and stop people (taser) its just a bi product, not intentional but a taser causes pain but its not what it was for.

If your attacked in prision it has nothing to do with the law, they sentenced you they dint have a tannoy saying "Prisoner #1187 has arrived, fresh meat" and it was not the officers who had envolvement, thats like saying because I have to go to school its the governments fault if I am bullied. Still if you dont want any of that to happen you dont break the law, its pretty simple. He wouldnt deserve to be assaulted but like I said, if he obeyed nothing would have happened in the first place, I am not justifying assault, but its avoidable, and if your in prison chances are you will be attacked, to avoid that, avoid prison, avoid that by obeying the law society has set.
As for criminal rights, if your a pedophile, rapist, drug dealer, murderer or hate preecher, as far as I am concearned you have none, you destroy lives, destory their rights, if you think you can destory others rights then you should accept that the government can destory yours. If your not that then you should have some rights.

He's not really a kid (we really should stop using that term) he's an advlt

Again he is committing an illegal act by trespassing and evading arrest by police. They are well within their right to use non-lethal force, which they did, to apprehend him. This is not a power trip and you are very mistaken in believing it to be so.

Please do not try to chalk these criticisms up to personal vendettas or stereotypes, let's look at the facts:

1) Some kid jumped a fence and got onto the field.

Examination: Security and police can't watch all fences at all times, so a determined person can climb out and make it onto the field. The fence was there was a message to keep people out, it was not listened to and someone got onto the field. After some amount of time, could have been seconds, could have been minutes, )did the article say? Linked video just showed the tasing), security/police noticed someone was where they weren't supposed to be and went to apprehend him.

2) Kid is on a field for a while evading capture.

Examination: A security team or police officer could not apprehend this person.... why? Was the kid too fast? Why was the kid too fast? Were they out of shape? Or was the kid just in better shape? How is it that one in shape person can evade a TEAM of security officers/police working together?

Unless the police were not working together, or they were undermanned. But even then, you would think that with a little intelligent planning you could get three or four guys together to catch a kid. I mean he's in the middle of a field, it's not like you can lose track of him or be unable to surround him.

So police were out of shape, or not in shape enough, not working together, or perhaps undermanned, unable to communicate or coordinate some sort of strategy to capture this kid.

For a law enforcement team whose job it is to protect people, in my personal opinion ALL of these possibilities are UNACCEPTABLE.

But what do I know? I'm not trained? Or is this just asking too much?

3) They tase the kid.

Examination: On what grounds was this justified? Was the kid attacking someone? Was the kid attacking an officer? He was evading arrest, but was he necessarily resisting? Was he making threats toward an officer or a person? Did he have a weapon? Was he acting in a way that made it seem like he was eminently going to attack someone? Did police attempt to physically restrain him BEFORE tasing and then he escaped? It didn't look that way to me (and the video has since been removed).

NONE of these are about police stereotypes or vendettas. They are observations drawn from the current situation, and ONLY the current situation.

All that I (and perhaps others) would like is to question why it happened in the way it did, and how it can happen better in the future. Maybe stricter physical requirements are in order, maybe they are not. No one is bringing up stereotypes except for you.



Again, punishment is not their job. If they are punishing someone for something, they are acting out of bounds. We have a legal system for deciding a just punishment.



I am sorry, but I just fundamentally do not agree with that. There's no way that I can even begin to create an argument against that which would not waste either of our time, so I won't.

All I will say is that prisoners have rights, as to lawbreakers. To take away those rights means that we begin to treat them cruelly and inhumanely, which is against the law.



Well that's just great. Maybe you should look into the people who are imprisoned falsely and are released years later because new evidence comes out proving their innocence. So did they deserve everything they got in prison that was NOT given to them according to their sentence?



Not according to the law.

If you think he's an advlt, try to change the law.

(plus I'm sure we know people who are much older than him but who act much more immaturely..... at least this kid had clothes on )

Alright, so bad example. Danger of using extremes to make a point.

Still, should we always presume they're the worst kind of criminal just because they are a criminal? The kid who jumped over my back fence is after his tennis ball, not my liver. The guy illegally parked is just careless, not setting up for a quick getaway. The guy who cheated his tax return isn't funding a terrorist operation. Yes, they broke the law and yes they could be making a quick getaway with my liver to fund a terrorist cell, but to assume they are act as if they are is overkill. I'd fight like a demon if I thought somebody was after my liver but when there's no evidence, only speculation, my actions would be unjustified.


A fair point, but impossible to know. If they'd tasered him as he was halfway over the fence would you still feel the action was justified?

Certainly, if he'd declared his intentions and charged the pitcher, I wouldn't argue against their use. If he'd been running around the outfield for five minutes then suddenly sliced the left fieldsman across the face with a hidden switchblade I may feel differently. Knowing the facts as I do however, I don't think it was justified.