Tasing a ten year old... Wow!

Remove all ads!

I can't find your link, but I found this:

It seems 100 pounds is the lower safe limit according to Taser... based on zapping pigs. The entire safety margin issue appears to be not well defined (based on the ten or so articles I read).

 

There will likely not ever be much evidence that derives from experiments performed on actual human children, as I believe that such a study (tasing kids) might raise just a few ethical problems.

 

She was 10. I thought this was already established...

 

I understand how HIV is transmitted. And previous posters have vindicated my claim that HIV can be transmitted via a bite.

We were asked for a scenario in which we wouldn't have any moral qualms about tasing a child, and we gave one. Sure, they aren't exactly the most common scenarios, but there have been children with HIV who have bitten other people, and children have threatened others with a firearm.

 

There are actually two cases here, and you mix them, so I'll break them up.
1.) For a barb taser, the amperage is set, so voltage varries with resistance 9such as jumping an air gap). For barb tasers, this is important because the current may easily pass through organs. Higher voltages may cause burns on contact with skin, but the amps don't (or aren't supposed to) put organs at risk.
2.) For a drive-stun taser, the voltage is set, so the amperage varries with resistance, but here the current only passes through skin, so only voltage is a concern (voltage causes burns). Here, amps can be anything, since it doesn't pass through deep tissue.

Ah, but the cop did tase her. Given that information, if the child wasn't a threat, I think it safe to say the cop was one of those three. That means that, if you assume the child wasn't a threat, you have to assume the cop was a bad cop.

They've also had a lot more leeway for the vast majority of that time than cops do now, and now that they don't, a lot of teachers are having problems with discipline.

Again, while it hasn't been established in the specific case of children, it has been established in general. So, let me ask you this: if Taser published research showing that the use of their latest model was safe on children down to, say, 20 lbs, would you concede?

LKD, have you ever dealt with a child with severe emotional problems? Maybe a child who had been abused by her mother, or her father, or her brothers? They can be a threat to themselves and others, even without weapons. Again, you appear to assume she wasn't a threat because you can't concieve how she could be. I can.

But why? Why is electric shock inappropriate whereas physical restraint is? Why single out electricity? I have yet to hear a justification.

Would you describe your child, to a newspaper reporter, as having 'emotional problems'? I think it's safe to assume, either from that fact or from the combination of a broken home and her mother calling the police because she won't take a shower, that this child is far from an ordinary, mentally healthy child.

 

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/36929673/ns/sports-baseball/

Back to Tasing....

Some idiot cop at Citizen's Park in Philly decided it was okay to Tase a spectator when they ran onto the field. I'm sure they needed the Taser to subdue a juvenile who was running around in order to get his face on TV. Which, on principle alone, they purposely won't show and everyone knows this in America, as it happens frequently.

 

That one is a bit more defensible - the "juvenile" is 17 - less than one year from being a legal adult. Additionally, he was charged with "criminal trespassing", so he was committing a crime. While I think the response of to the situation was extreme, I find this more defensible that the tasing of the 10-year old girl.

 

I think far fewer people will run on to the field if they think they will get tased. I think even a drunk would think twice.

 

In light of on-field attacks in recent years (and the idiocy of Phillies fans who are only a slight step up from Chicago and New York fans) I don't necessarily feel the officer was wrong....

 

This kid did not attack anyone. Running onto a baseball field is nothing that merits a Taser treatment. Call it what you will, but it is basically a past time in America at baseball games. Remember the large breated blonde who would run onto the field to get a kiss from the players? Should they of Tased her too? That would of caused an uproar, I'm sure. Wait a minute, they didn't have Tasers back then? Oh, they had Clubs instead. Maybe they should of Clubbed her.

There was a recent incident at a Phillies game where a knucklehead in the stands purposely puked on a father and his little girl and when apprehended, did it again to the cop. Even that scumball doesn't need to be Tased, just apprehended. Just commiting a crime is not grounds to be Tased. It's the actions and circumstances that should determine the usage of Tasing. Fighting with a cop, yes, running around a baseball field for entertainment value, you will never convince me that is an offense that constitutes Tasing.

 

I absolutely agree with BoV. The guy ran waving a shirt or a flag or whatever it was. If he wanted to do a serious crime or hurt someone, he would have done it (ex, run to a baseball player and stab him). They had no reason to suspect any act of violence from the kid. The level of force clearly was higher than the threat. Even with the 10 year old girl this thread is about, she attacked the police office and was aggressive. This fellow was not, he was just disrupting a baseball game for entertainment value.

 

Blades is just pissed 'cause the Card's KICKED THE PHILLIES ASSES!!!!

 

There was an incident a couple of years back, where two drunk fans lept onto the field and attacked the first base coach. I think it was at White Sox game, although the first base coach attacked was from the opposing team. While they did not use them during the fight (which may just go to show how drunk they were) then men were armed with knives.

Now granted that the kid was 17, he may not have been drinking at all. (At least there have been no reports that he was drunk when he was arrested.)

In light of attacks like these, I can see the aggressive stance of security when someone goes on the field. While I will concede that tasing was probably not necessary in this instance, a 17-year old should have enough sense to know that fans that run onto the field are generally not treated particularly kindly. He probably didn't expect to be tased, but he had to expect a forceful reaction of some kind.

Finally a 17-year old is nearly full grown. Due to the physical differences between a 17-year old boy and a 10-year old girl, not to mention the reasoning capabilities, I can see some significant mitigating circumstances that make this not nearly as bad.

 

Lol! Damn Cards! We'll, let's see how that turns out next time when we get J-Roll back in the lineup.

Point taken.

---------- Added 0 hours, 6 minutes and 31 seconds later... ----------

I remember that attack. That was a father and son tandem I believe. Idiots. And it should change the way security handled those who ran onto the field. But also remember, that was a one-time deal. 99.9% of those who run onto the field do it as a stupid stunt/prank only. When you see a lone teenager do it and not charge at a player/coach, it's pretty safe to say it's a prank only.

This kid is a senior in High School and has been accepted to Penn State, according to the interview his father gave. He should know better. Apparently, he phoned his father right before the stunt and asked his permission/blessing on running onto the field. Obviously his father said bad idea, but lack of judgement got the better of him.

 

Ha-ha, another father-son tandem, just like the duo Blades referenced: William Ligue and son. (Note: there is some mild profanity in the link.)

And Jr. is still proud. (Also contains mild profanity.)

 

Gaear, that is the duo 1st referenced by Aldeth. The son looks like a real winner, dad must be so proud...

---------- Added 20 hours, 32 minutes and 16 seconds later... ----------

Another idiot jumped onto the field last night at the Phils game. He was holding drugs on his person. What a knucklehead. Him, they should Tase on principle!

 

He absolutely should have been tased. IMO, when you run onto the field and disrupt the game, you get what you get. If you don't want to be tased, don't run onto the field!

 

hum, I'm not sure if you were joking or not. If not, well I don't really agree. The point here is the level of force used does not exceed the level of threat. If a guy pulls out a gun or a knife on a cop (or on anyone while a cop is present), it is entirely justifiable to tased or shoot the person. Even the issue with the 10 year old girl was in a way defendable (because the girl was reported as aggressive), though the debate on this was that the level of force was deemed excessive but some, including myself. Now here, a 17 year old was running around like it often happens in games. He was in no way aggressive or physically abusive to anyone and didn't show any intent to commit a serious felony. To me, it seemed that the police officer used his taser because he was annoyed of running around after someone. That is not an acceptable reason to use a such a weapon.

As for you point, why should it be accepted that people who run into the field are tased?

 

Why should it be accepted that people run out on the field?