Assumed guilty until proven innocent? Hardly a system that I'd support. Anybody in the crowd is a "potential terrorist", but they're not being shot with tasers. At this point the kid was guilt of what? Trespass? Being a public nuisance? Is there a precedent for armed people running around the pitch for five minutes before attacking? Using a weapon issued for use in immobilising dangerous people or somebody who has shown no signs of being dangerous just strikes me as being tad bit excessive.

I think tazering him was a good idea, it's not like they shot him with a real gun or anything. A tazer svcks for about 5 seconds then there are no after effects (unlike mace) so it was perfectly reasonable and did not harm the kid at all. He should probably stay off the field next time.

I like how people seem to equate getting tasered with getting shot or brutally beaten. Forget that people have been tackled and dragged away in cuffs for running around on sports fields during games before, but this one was tasered "Oooh, baaad".

They weren't making any assumptions about guilt, they were apprehending someone that they knew to be up to no good.

Can I save some of these zingers as slogans for a fictional police state in a thriller novel, should I ever write one?

Can you please define exactly what you mean by that? "Up to no good" that is.

I take that to mean "intent on perpetrating a serious crime" namely one that causes harm to someone or their property.

Trespassing doesn't really fit that bill. Illegal, yes. But inherently causing harm? No, not really.

It can lead to a crime that causes harm, but inherently is not harmful.

Also, while not equally as bad as getting shot or brutally beaten, I still don't see tazers as some "fix all" tool. And it's already been established that tazers can lead to problems or aggravate problems. I think some judgment should still be used before using a tazer.

"Hey, that kid didn't pay for his gum!" *taze*
"Hey, did you just bump into me?" "taze"
"Arrest me, on what charges?" *taze*
*Excuse me, do you know where I can find-" *taze*

If you're evading a police officer while in the midst of breaking a law (in this case it's considered trespassing) then they are allowed to taser you. I have no problem with it.

Too much of a slippery slope. There is a precedent for handling people running on sports fields during games already. That precedent is "get that idiot off the field asap", taser or no.

He was breaking the law and resisting arrest. I don't see why his apprehension is not to be expected or desired.

Unnecessary. Tasing is the fat cop's friend apparently. The security guys would have run him down eventually (being they didn't seem to have 50 extra pounds around their belts). There have always been people running on fields during sporting events and they somehow dealt with it prior to tasers.

A matter of appropriateness rather than force. If they'd beaten him with batons I'd still take issue. If they'd used capsicum spray I'd still take issue. All of these were designed to catch armed criminals, not fools running around in circles. A good crash-tackle or clothesline are effective enough for situations like this. It's not necessarily less painful or violent, but what limitations there should be in the apprehension of criminals and what point does it become 'excessive force'.


I find your statement ambiguous. What slippery slope? I would've called using tasers on unarmed people the first step on the slippery slope, but I don't think that's what you're trying to argue.


The issue isn't really the arrest itself, but the way it was conducted. Whether the means used was appropriate for the crime.

I was responding to ROY, who seemed to be saying that he didn't consider it a crime because it didn't happen to affect him personally.

I don't think it was necesssary. True, he was breaking the rules, but in my eyes it didn't warrant tazering.

@Steampunk: You do know that people have died from tazing. It's unusual, but it happens.

That's the Darwin effect in operation.

Sorry, but I don't think that was at work there.

Meh, it was probably excessive, but I can't bring myself to say it was completely wrong. And speaking as a White Sox fan, I won't soon forget these two incidents:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,84283,00.html

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/baseball/news/2002/09/19/royals_whitesox_ap/

People that die from tazering are usually under the effects of illegal drugs or have pre-existing heart conditions. If you're on drugs, it's your fault and you should have to face the consequences, and if you have a heart condition what the hell are you doing running around on a baseball field? What happens when someone runs on the field and wants to hurt someone? Tazering them would be the quickest way to stop it.

They should've blown his legs out from under him. That'll teach him to never run out onto a baseball field again.

I think the use of excessive force in all situations is warranted. I hate people.

The way I see it, is if the cop feels its in the best interest of everyone involved to use excessive force then he is well within his rights to protect the people to do whatever is necessary to eliminate the threat. However miniscule that threat is.

Seriously Roy, a kid running down the street is not the same as a kid climbing a barrier designed to prevent entry and protect not only the baseballl players, but the fans themselves.
Please find a better ananlogy. To put it succinctly, the cops there, regardless of physical condition, are not mind readers. It is not their job to fiddlefart around with what intent might be.
It was their job to stop the kid, without him getting seriously hurt or seriously hurting someone else. Cops, before they carry a weapon, like tasers, night stick, or mace, have to experience it during training.
Yes, during training they are maced, tasered, and whacked with nightsticks, so the can correlate some sort of empathy to the individual they are possibly going to use it on.
Those cops were probably close to retirement, out of shape, and paid to come provide an exterior veneer of security. Don't even want to get into plainclothes cops and security that were probably there.

The way I read it, he was arguing that the committing of a relatively minor crime does not necessarily indicate any sinister intention. It relates back to the main argument in whether or not the police were right in their actions based on mere assumption, knowing nothing more than the lad was trespassing.


So people under the effects of drugs deserve to die? Heart troubles automatically dictate that somebody should behave in a perfectly reasonable manner at all times?

What I infer from it, Wolf101 is that you as an individual are responsible for your actions and the consequences of your actions. If you consume illegal substances, show your [censored] and misbehave, resulting in law enforcement having to subdue you with a taser, it's YOUR FAULT.
If I as a diabetic, go out and consume mass quantites of sugary carbs, then go into a coma while driving a semitruck through an elementary school, it's my fault.
Because as a responsible advlt, I don't engage in activies that would endanger my health, and consequently, endanger the health of others.

If you have a heart condition and you know tasers and microwaves are a no-no, then self preservation should be a deterrent to misbehavior.
If you consume illegal drugs, your best bet is to not attract the attention of law enforcement.

Honestly, this is wack.

I think the committing of a crime indicates a sinister intention to commit a crime, for which apprehension is acceptable. The police did not have to assume the guy was breaking the law. They knew it. Their job was to stop him. They stopped him.

In response to this:



This. ^



That's not what I said. THIS is what I said:



While a crime, not necessarily a violent crime or one that is inherently harmful to people or possessions.



I have no comment for that, I'm trying to stay civil. If you can't see the problem with that statement... wow.



The anology was made to show how the situation and the person's intent do not always line up.

Some drunk kid running across the field LOOKS the same as a potential murderer running across the field. Should we treat them the same? I don't think so.

A kid (there are big 16 and 17 year olds out there running at you in a violent neighborhood LOOKS the same as a cop killer running at you. Should we treat them the same? I don't think so.

Now obviously a judgment call has to be made. And again, that's why I said I never want to be a cop: because you have to make the judgment call and it is on you to make that judgment call. Do you draw your weapon to save the life of yourself and the lives of others, because if you draw too soon you might be wrong and hurt an innocent person thinking they are a criminal, but if draw too late you put lives in jeopardy. I didn't say it was easy or the call was always going to be right, but we must hold the people making the call accountable, and when they take on the job, they agree to be held accountable.

If you don't want to be held accountable should you make the wrong decision, don't decide to be a law enforcement officer. That's why I decided I don't want to be a law enforcement officer.



Which is why for all those people they still couldn't apprehend someone without a tazer? Again, if they couldn't apprehend someone with all the people they had there (or at least as many as one would think or hope would be there) then again we have bigger problems. A tazer should not have to compensate for a lack of general security.



Yes.



That to me sounds like a slippery slope in and of itself, namely about what rights prisoners and lawbreakers have. There are first time offenders who commit relatively minor crimes, but are then put in prisons where serious repeat offenders are held, where they are subsequently treated to all kinds of abuse at the hands of other inmates or even the prison guards themselves, and after their stay they come out worse than when they got in- if they make it out at all from the violence or diseases spread through sixual assault (there is no legal "[censored]" if a man is "[censored]" by another man, it's just sixual assault) [edit] Had no idea that was censored.... sorry.

Do these people DESERVE it just because they broke the law? If so, fine. We can save a lot of money and manpower by not hiring prison guards. Let's just dump all criminals in a hole for a while and let them do as they please, fending for themselves. It might sound extreme, but this is really what thoughts like this lead to.



Stopped him from what? Running across a field? Because as wolf said, that's really all they knew. And in this country, you are innocent until proven guilty. And unless someone heard him say, "I'm going to kill someone" or they saw him wielding what looked like a weapon, the only crime committed here was trespassing, and really, the only thing he disturbed was a game. A. Game. It wasn't the president giving an address. It wasn't a summit of military leaders discussing world peace. It wasn't a charity organization delivering food to the hungry. It. Was. A. Game.

"Sinister intention"? Please.

I agree that if you did all that stuff it would be your responsibility. However, I wouldn't think you somehow 'deserved' to be tased, or hurt in any way. By necessity you will need to be stopped, yes. Maybe you might get hurt in the apprehension process, and if it's necessary then I guess it couldn't be helped. But I wouldn't say 'Hurrumph, she deserved it!".

Things like that should only be done where obviously necessary, and still, I'd be sad that you got hurt. People are still people, even when they're negligent. They may have been dumb but it's still unfortunate that they get hurt. I don't think this is a very 'wack' perspective to have. Most theories in ethics and even most major religions have some kind of respect for all people, even the stupid and negligent.