I'd say it works for both.

Well the kid wasn't drunk or on drugs just to clear that up. He actually called his dad before he did it and his dad said he shouldn't, so he did it anyways..not smart no. I don't think the guard should have tased him because he couldn't catch up to him though, which looked to be the reason he did it. Because that guard didn't pull out the taser right away, but only after he couldn't run anymore..which is silly. I also read that even the team thought the taser was not necessary because the kid wasn't dangerous. Sure there are always chances, but most of the time when this stuff happens..those people can be dangerous as well..but the guards can actually catch them.

I'm not gonna say the kid got what he deserved, he should have got a bit less..tackled maybe but that's about it. The guard should get some sort of "I need to start running laps more" punishment though, especially because that seems to be the reason the kid got tased..rather than being a threat.

:shrug: There's nothing inherently wrong with climbing a barrier, it's just some rule. People who are willing to consider breaking rules like that have a bit more freedom of thought than average, I think, which is commendable in its own way.

I'm not against the use of a taser. Tase 'em as soon as they hit the field as far as I'm concerned.

In the U.S. there's been a growing discontent with idiot fans running out onto the field. Some jurisdictions have passed harsher penalties, and television stations no longer broadcast these bozos live (and aren't rerun with this exception). It's no longer considered funny, clever, or entertaining. Public sentiment may not be that way overseas, where it seems the idiots like to do their stupid [censored] naked for whatever reason.

That being said, a taser's not going to stop someone that wants to do real damage. The damage would probably already be done.

He's an idiot. Baseballs are hard, they are pitched and hit at speeds equivalent to automobiles on the highway. That [censored] kid is lucky he didn't get hit in the head with one and killed.
He's the reason why fences are put up, because most of us understand that interruptions during a baseball game by fans running on the field can result in someone getting seriously hurt.
People like him ruin it for other fans who would actually like to approach a sports player in a more appropriate setting.
But instead of him suffering the consequences of his stupidity, oh no, we get whining about it. He was selfabsorbed, immature, and ruined the game for other people.

Yes. We definitely need those inhuman monsters to protect us from crazy kids. You could really do some damage to the world interrupting sporting events like that. Definitely the end of the world material. Knowing that I'd be happy to give out the powers of law and justice to people with no concept of compassion. It's the only way to keep ourselves safe at night.

In other words, ARE YOU SERIOUS?! What has a pitch runner got to do with keeping people safe? A nuisance surely, but I do not see the threat in it.

Here we just punish whatever team the runner was cheering for.
If fans destroy parts of a stadium, the club pays etc.

I dunno, the danger kinda makes him sound like even more of a champ. Here, he'd get given a slap on the back and a beer.

Yes, the ( security / cops / whoever ) were right in him being tasered.

Really, Zeno? "Just some rule"? "Don't stab someone with a knife" is also just some rule, so some nutjob who doesn't like me just has more freedom of thought than I do, he can just slice me up? If I own property, and put a 6 foot fence around it, because it's my property and I don't want anyone stomping on my azaleas, and you see it and say "Hey, I am a free thinker, and this fence means nothing" and you hop over, run around my garden, scare my cat, wreck my tomato plants... I don't have the right to tackle you and call the cops to at least fine you for trespassing and make you pay for the damage you caused? How is that commendable - you can't have it both ways.

As for the specific incident, honestly, I think they should have just tackled the guy and hauled him off (which I have seen at professional games before) and they are usually not that gentle. I do get concerned over the use of tasers as an easy out in a lot of circumstances where an individual is just being an idiot, and clearly not endangering anyone. But... that kid just learned a pretty major lesson about not being an idiot.

Here as an advlt he'd be arrested for it.

Ya. :shrug: If someone has no intent to hurt anybody else, damage their property or restrict their freedom, how can I have any beef with them? They're not doing anything ethically questionable at all. They really are only breaking 'just some rule'.

Obviously stabbing someone counts as hurting someone else, so of course I'd consider that more than just a rule. Same goes for the other examples you mentioned. They all involve doing something ethically questionable.

As far as I'm concerned many rules have exceptions, many have no ethical basis whatsoever, and many laws are not necessary or not in people's best interest. If someone breaks those, I don't care. Why should we? :shrug:

Yeah, that's the only reason I'm not on the cops' side in this is because it is sounding like he tased him because he was out of shape. I also find it funny that the baseball team itself thinks it was unnecessary.

They didn't necessarily know that at the time. A taser was not lethal in this case, the kid got in a bit of pain, which is acceptable enough considering this was a potential terrorist a few days after another potential terrorist attack. I'm not gonna jump on the security's backs for being a bit rough with someone who knows better.

He entered those grounds having agreed to obey the rules of those grounds. He can't complain if he does something clearly prohibited that he agreed not to do.

The thing with appropriate use of force is that you have to have grounds for using that force.

A kid, maybe drunk, running across the field, in no particular direction towards no particular person, no observable weapons, doesn't look like he's going for anything........

And the reasoning for tazing him is "he might have been a terrorist" or "he might have pulled a gun" or "he might have attacked somebody".

So does that mean if you see some kid running down the street in your direction in a bad neighborhood you could taze him because he "might be coming to kill me" or you see someone running in Times Square and you taze them because you think they "might be trying to escape the scene where they planted a bomb"?

Really?

I don't want to point this out, but that is the dangerous thing with police work, and that's why I don't really want to be a cop:

You have to protect peoples' lives, but you also have to protect their rights, and you shouldn't have to enforce or punish a law until it is actually broken, and you have to have a justifiable reason. Which is why excessive use of force is so tricky, because you are also trying to protect your own life. If there's a drunk angry person shoving his hand in his pocket, he might just be reaching for a gun, so your instinct is to shoot, but he might be going for a cigarette (and he's under the influence, so no good judgment of the situation or that as a cop, you have a gun). So you are not within your right to shoot (in my opinion, anyway) unless you actually see the gun or he is making threats that make you think he has a gun.

But at the same time, if he has a gun and pulls it and shoots, you are dead, your buddies are dead, or innocent people are dead.

It's a decision under circumstances in a split second that you have to make, and I would never want to make that choice.

HOWEVER, as a law enforcement officer, everyone is trusting you to make that choice, and by becoming an officer you are telling everyone that you are willing to make that choice, are capable to make that choice, and are willing to handle the consequences of not making that choice.

It's not an easy choice. That's why I won't become a cop. If you can't make that choice, then don't become a cop.

I don't think tazing was necessary. It's a baseball stadium, he just ran out in the field, everyone sees him, he's under the influence, you have an entire team of security and police officers. Where exactly is this kid going to go? How is he going to escape? If you think this guy has any possible chance of escaping, you have much bigger problems to worry about, like, how did we not catch a drunk 17 year old in plain sight?

Don't want to sound too old fashioned, but in some older eras of the samurai it was a disgrace if someone pulled their sword in a situation that didn't warrant it- namely, if there was a drunk or untrained idiot trying to piss you off, as a warrior you had dozens of ways to take them down without having to use your most recognizable weapon. I think it is kind of a shame that they had to use a tazer in this situation, when there were dozens of other methods of settling the situation.

So... even though the 30,000 other people there paid good money to watch a sporting event that he interrupted with shenanigans, it's okay? Granted he may not have physically damaged anything or anyone, but what about the rights of the guy who paid several hundred dollars to take his two sons to a game, that now got interrupted and delayed, and possibly freaked out his kids due to seeing someone get tasered? The baseball field is not public property, and your purchase of a ticket to watch a game does not include the unspoken "oh, and it's no problem if you want to vault the barrier and run around the field during a game". :shrug:

It's a good time to teach your kids why you shouldn't do stupid stuff.

"Remember how mad you were when the game got postponed because someone ran out onto the field? Do you want to do that to another game when you turn 17? No? Good."

Life happens. Stupid people do stupid stuff. Kids are funny like that, and a lot of them have good memories of the times when things DIDN'T go as planned more than when they did.

Still, I think the tazing was excessive.

Oh, I'm not saying doing it is a smart thing, or that it would be good if everyone did it willy-nilly. However, as I said I 'have no beef with him', and that's why I can't agree with his tasering. Basically my point was more that I don't understand how people can agree to the tasering of someone that they, ultimately, don't have any real beef with.

They may have a good reason to be there. That kid had no business on that pitch, he could only be up to no good, so some sort of apprehension was necessary.

This.

Baseball is boring, but I would watch it if things like this happend more often!

Yeah but tasing the kid because you're out of shape doesn't seem like the right judgment call on an apprehension method.

Because if we don't stand up for what is right, then we need more and more people with tasers to do it for us.

That sounds like a very, very dangerous assumption.

I know this might sound kind of funny, but not everyone who breaks the law, for example, trespassing, has bad intentions or means to do harm.

Trespassing, being where you are not supposed to be, is, in my mind, very different from trespassing with the intent to do harm.

Trespassing requires a simple apprehension of the person.

Trespassing with the intent to do harm requires not only the apprehension, but incapacitating the person who is meaning to do harm. But again, there has to be grounds upon which people make the decision that the person intended to do harm (for example, they were waving a gun around and screaming, "I hate you, die!!!!") And they should be able to give their justification.

Tazering someone is a great way to prevent the from carrying out their intent to do harm without actually killing them.

Tazering someone is a convenient, but not very justifiable way, to get someone whose only real crime is being where they aren't supposed to be.

Dealing with someone with no ill intent the same way we treat someone with ill intent, namely, treating a 17 year old in the same way we treat a potential mass murderer or terrorist, sounds very, very dangerous.