Clearly you are mistaken in the fact that there have not been any steretypes that have been promoted in this thread



Would you like me to quote others or can you look back a few pages yourself?

No, 17 is still a kid. (Can't vote, drink, fight for your country, etc.)

A taser can be lethal sometimes. Is the risk worth it in this very minor issue? I say no. They had other alternatives, (Listed above.) and chose not to use them.

And I will repeat it again, tasers were intended to subdue violent individuals when all other means have failed. (Excluding guns, though tasers have even been used in those cases from time to time with great success.) Not kids showing off.

I say, they didn't go far enough! I demand live ammunition!

In all seriousness, this.

Yeah I gloss over stuff that doesn't really contribute. Maybe there are stereotypes in this thread, so I'll concede that point to you.... anyway....

Would you care to address the points that I raised? Or perhaps the entire real life event happened because of the stereotypes in this thread...

Once I'm finished studying for my midterm (that's in half an hour *gasp*) and I get out of class yes I will

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZ4aDjj9cOI&feature=related

Well, I'll be long gone by then I have one final exam this afternoon and one tomorrow, then I'm on summer breeeeeeeaaaaaaaakkkkk :foodndrink: but yeah nice talkin' to ya, good luck on the midterm!



Wow, those guys didn't even look like they TRIED.

Thanks for posting that, much clearer than the original video.

Extreme much?

Your compassion warms my heart. :rolleyes:

That too. Not to mention there is higher chance of injury if he was tackled, or if he resisted even further and they had be subdue the dike with more force.

Take a jujutsu class and you can learn a wristlock in about 5 minutes that will put someone down no problem. Trust me, they won't even want to resist.

Of course, to do that you'd actually have to have your hands ON the guy first.... but hey, why run when you can just shoot him with a taser?

The video says it all. The two guys in the dark blue had the look about them like, "I don't really want to try to get this guy." They were quick to help out once the kid was already down though

I dont think he deserved it, but he had it coming. It was the result of his own actions. I think that officers should cool down with tasers, and I doubt that he was a terrorist with a pocket-sized nuclear bomb, but he still got what he payed for. As said, a bit harsh perhaps but he should have obeyed the rules in the first place. Theyre not there just so that stupid kids can be cool breaking them.

So. He resisted arrest, and halted a game by illegally entering field during a game. I see no problem tazing him. He also wasn't tackled, and had to manhandled because he kept resisting (which I have seen happen a few times). He was tazed, and dragged off. Deserved every bit of the five minutes of pain. At least he wasn't maced, that stuff hurts.

And I have taken jujitsu classes, and a brother who fights MMA and specializes in jujitsu and boxing, and he can rip my arm off if he wanted, but this has no relevance to the subject at all

I wouldn't call it "resisted" as much as "evaded" arrest.

If they had grabbed him, and he had struck the officer or otherwise made an escape that way, then sure, tase him. Maybe there's a more complete video found so far, but from what I see now, those guys didn't seem very determined to physically get their hands on him until AFTER he was on the ground.



I'm not talking about Brazilian Jujutsu and a lot of the more wrestling style jujutsu found in MMA. I'm talking about more "real world" jujutsu (sometimes classical, sometimes modern) that involves the use of restraining for law enforcement, usually that keeps the user free enough to move around and cuff or otherwise transport the person they restrained.

While some rudimentary stuff is taught, a lot of people wind up falling back on their gun, or in this case, a taser. Because a taser is considered "non-lethal" and is easy to use, it encourages people to ignore other methods of apprehension and restraint and cut to a more "easy" solution.

So, what did they do wrong? You are pretty much treating this as though he was savagely beaten and maced for the kicks and giggles.


So, why is this wrong? Why do they need to do things the hard way?

Just a general caution - not surprisingly, this subject brings up strong feelings pro and con - just make sure to keep things from getting too heated in some exchanges, okay? Not singling anyone out, just acknowledging that this can be a touchy subject.

They used an excessive amount of force. There were ways in which he could have been brought down WITHOUT the use of a taser (there were THREE people after him, and a FOURTH in white seemed to quit the chase)



It's already been established that there are risks associated with the use of tasers, and under certain conditions a taser can in fact be fatal. Tasers are great for apprehending someone who is committing violent acts of violently resisting, or if there are innocent people in the crowd. With a gun you could hurt or kill the offender or innocents, but with a taser there is significantly less risk. It is not risk free, but it is significantly lower.

As wolfpup has stated, tasers were intended to be used as a last resort before the use of guns, meaning when all other attempts to capture have failed.

It looks like these guys gave up as soon as they realized they were actually going to have to run after this kid and actually put their hands on him, so they just tased him and for all they knew it could have been fatal.

And before you (or someone else says) that if he died, well, it was his own fault. Well, again it goes back to the rights of lawbreakers. When you break a law do you automatically forfeit your life? Punishments are meted out by a court. Also, there need to be grounds upon which a law enforcement officer justifies their use of force. What was this justification? Did he verbally or physically threaten someone? Did he have a weapon? Did it seem like he was going directly for a target?

It looks to me like he was an idiot waving a towel around.

You should not be exposed to physical harm beyond what is absolutely necessary during a police apprehension of you. A taser was not absolutely necessary. A little bit of physical fitness, intelligence, and, oh yeah, three grown men actually trying to make an effort on one 17 year old was absolutely necessary.

I don't know how much of the thread you've read, but I'll reiterate just in case:

I know it's a tough decision that law enforcement has to make between acting in a way that will protect people, but while not infringing on the rights of people. I would never want to make that decision, which is why I don't ever want to be a cop. It can be trouble if you act and trouble if you don't act. But as citizens we all trust cops to protect the rights of citizens. And I know from a cop's perspective a taser is great when compared to a gun- you have a reliable way of putting someone down without killing them, and keeping a potentially violent person (keyword: potentially) under control until you figure out what's what.

But it is easy, with such technology, to get complacent, and to start using it like duct tape: to fix every situation.

A little bit more physical exertion from perhaps more physically capable individuals might have changed the situation. But it looks like this kid could run circles around these guys for an hour, and it seemed like the use of a taser was because it was a "quick fix."

Anyway, essay time!

Maybe if the knucklehead who tazed him eased off the donuts he would have been able to catch the kid and tackle him to the floor. Just a trigger-happy cop trying to look badass for the crowd.

I can't really 2nd guess the police on this one. Would I have used a Taser? Probably not, but I can't say for sure. Protecting the athletes from lunatics is a job they must take very seriously.

Maybe if the knuckleheaded kid hadn't been an idiot, he wouldn't have gotten tazed. How do you or anyone else know what the cop was thinking? I am not a cop, nor do I want to be one. I wish we didn't need them. But, with what they have to face and the world we live in, they can't be too careful. How did the police know he was just a stupid kid? There was a failed truck bomb in NYC like what three days earlier? If he had complied with the policeman's orders the cop wouldn't have to do what he did. Everything that happened that evening was that kid's fault. Not the police, not the Phillies, not MLB. It was his choice to do what he did, and he should be a man and accept his punishment.

I'm sorry but when did running around become a reason enough to taser someone?

Because he could be dangerous to the players? please.. when did they become more important than us normal folks? Are the cops going to start tasering people who are jogging in the street because they are a threat to the people nearby?

Because technology means they don't have to try and apprehend them, and instead can use potentially fatal measures, just because it's easier.

People running on the field isn't a new thing. It happens a lot, and nothing ever comes of it. If he wanted to blow up the stadium, I doubt running on the field would be the best option. Besides, there aren't even a lot of people out there, just overpaid athletes.

It's not the running around that they had the problem with

It's the trespassing and resisting arrest that they took up issue

Is it right? Probably not.

Did he have it coming?

You damn well know it.

Let's see if we can get this thread to post limit without any more political extremism, advocating violence, or responses to members who do feel so strongly about this case that they break these rules of the forums and decent discourse. I've deleted some posts. There will be no reposting of anything that was deleted.

This is the last time the moderators will do this without closing the thread and handing out suspensions.

"Just play the gig. Never get involved in politics." (Sgt. Floyd Pepper)