Tasing a ten year old... Wow!

Remove all ads!

It's not. As far as I know, they're chased around and caught by police officers and/or security guards. The issue is not whether is it right or not to interrupt a game. It's not. The issue whether or not it's right to use that level of force in this situation. This too is not.

 

If you run on the field during a Pittsburgh Steelers game, you're likely to be sidewalk slammed by James Harrison.

 

I'm pretty serious here - it's a completely avoidable situation. Just don't run onto the field, and nothing bad will happen.

How do you know this guy wasn't armed like the whackos that attacked the Royals first base coach a few years back. Like I said, if you know you may get tased, that's a pretty strong deterrant, and it only happens if you actually go out onto the field.

I'll let T2B take it from here:

Exactly.

 

Like we said before, a guy running around in the outfield waving a flag or shirt or whatever that was. He wasn't running to someone, let alone pulling out a weapon. Did the guy seem violent *at all* to you? Give me one good reason to believe the guy would harm someone? You can't use force on someone without a strong reason to do so. It's like tasing someone protesting (and doing something annoying) because he *might* be carrying a weapon.

And basing your logic on an event that happened a few years back isn't strong enough to support constant use of tasers in this situation. I would very much like to see the pourcentage of people doing stunts like this that are actually violent. It's like saying "Oh, a drunk guy attacked a police officer and was tased, therefore, whenever you see a drunk guy, you must tase him because he could assault a police officer". And there is a whole lot of ways to augment security without assaulting someone.

And about T2's point, yes, exactly. We all agree 100%. Too bad it's not what this debate is about... Again, this is not whether he was right or not to jump onto the field. It's about whether or not the use of tasers is justified.

 

Well, the point is the kid didn't know he might get tased. It never happened until then. For all the years people have been running onto the field, why do they have to all of the sudden Tase them? Like I said previously, they never beat the Kissing Bandit, though they didn't know if she was armed or not. Why have the rules changed. There hasn't been an outcry to stop it, so why start tasing them? It makes no sense.

 

As I said initially, I think the use of the taser is harsh, but that doesn't mean it's not justified. Also, I agree that the guy probably wasn't expecting to get tased. Here's the thing though: When he stepped onto the field, he committed a crime - unlawful trespass. Then, when he fled from the officer he committed a second crime - resisting arrest (and yes, he was charged with both). There are specific situations in which police officers are allowed to use a taser, and one of them is... you guessed it - resisting arrest.

So I actually do think from a law enforcement standpoint, use of the taser was justified. I don't even feel a little bit sorry for him. If you act like a jerk, you get what you get.

 

There's a very big difference between resisting arrest in the sense of physically trying to stop the police officer from putting the cuffs on you and resisting arrest in the sense of running in circles for the fun of having police officers running after you. A police officer who doesn't have the judgement required to make that distinction shouldn't have a badge, period.

A taser should only be used in a situation where the police officer has reason to believe he or anyone else might be hurt by the suspect (and that's assuming the taser should be used at all). Like any other weapon...

 

Another thing to be said is this. MLB games are entertainment venues, not a wedding, someone's home or any other private matter. A fool running onto the field is most likely doing so to get attention, thinking he/she is adding something to the experience. They are not hardened criminals who everyone should fear. The use of a Taser on a someone running thru the field smiling is ridiculous.

 

I don't know. It's not like the guy didn't know he was warned or didn't know what he was doing was wrong. The guy had it coming if you ask me.

 

Not a "Guy", a minor.

 

Actually, both.

I'll agree with the general sentiment that it should have been handled differently, though. In fact, I don't even know that police should have been the ones to do it. Doesn't the stadium have security?

 

Alright Blades, how do you tell the difference between a running 17YO and a running 18YO? If you're going to claim that tazing a minor is the issue then tell me how does a police officer train to tell when that magical point of minor-adult is crossed?

 

And how, exactly, do you think the police officers are to know the difference on the spot? It's not the first time a would-be assassin used feint, bluff and dodge to get to his mark.

I find it disturbing that such idiotic stunts get any sort of approval, ie. "they're doing it for the laughs and/or kicks". Granted, it's a far cry from actual hooliganism that plagues european soccer, but it's still doing stuff against the rules and security/police. Might be exciting for the security officer one time, but after a dozen, I wouldn't hold it on them if they chose to cut the chase and taze the m***f down.

 

Actually, from a legal standpoint, there is very little difference at all. Resisting arrest is doing anything that prevents the officer from arresting you - be it physically resisting the police officer, or as this person did, simply running away. You are free to disagree with the law, but to claim it is a "big difference" is not true.

I agree he wasn't a hardened criminal. But that in no way justifies his actions. He was told to stop by the cop numerous times before the cop got tired of chasing his butt all over the outfield and tased him.

As I stated previously, he probably didn't even know the cops were armed with tasers, much less considered the possibility of being tased. But the reason I have much less of a problem with this incident as compared to the 10-year old girl is twofold. 1.) He knew what he was doing was wrong. A 17-year old should know better. The reasoning capacity of someone who is smart enough to get accepted at Penn State is far more advanced than a 10-year old girl who is likely mentally disturbed. 2.) This situation was entirely of his own making. In the case of the 10-year old, I'm not even entirely sure why the mother called the police - it was the mother who escelated the situation to police involvement. Conversely, in this case, when the 17-year old jumped onto the field, he knew he would be chased by the police and/or stadium security, who would do what they could to get him down to the ground and arrest him. He was the one that escalated the situaiton to police involvement.

Also let's not forget that the police have a job to do here. What that teenager did is illegal - that he technically is some months shy of being considered a legal adult is besides the point, and as T2B pointed out, how was the police officer to tell? He is graduating high school this spring and he's still 17, so he probably hasn't had his birthday yet this year. He'll probably turn 18 this summer. How's a police officer going to differentiate between someone who is 18 and someone who is 17 3/4?

Most people who run onto the field are so drunk they can barely stand, much less run, so they are easily caught. From the pictures I've seen, he looks slim, and could probably run like the wind - or at least faster than the officer chasing him. The officer yelled at him to stop at least twice according to the reports, and probably realized rather quickly that chasing him would be futile. So Plan A was yelling at him to stop. Plan B was running after him. When those both proved ineffective, he went to Plan C: Tase him.

 

I dunno if it's only me, but a kid running around with a flag and a smile on his face doesn't really strike me as an assassin. And what are the police supposed to do? Assume everyone is a killer and act accordingly? Let's say you're walking down the street at night time. You see someone dressed in black coming towards you. You don't start to spray pepper in his eyes *in case* he had the intention of robbing you. A police officer is someone who has a lot of responsibility. A wrong decision can be dramatic. That's why they need to have good judgement (granted, a lot can't do that and that's why the police is often fired on by the media). Like Spider-Man's uncle said : With great power comes great responsibility...

Yes, the written law. As you know, police officers base their decisions on it but can't apply it 100% because it's black and white while the world is shades of gray. Let's say an officer pulls over a car that was going 140 km/h on the highway. He gets to the window and sees in the passenger seat a pregnant woman in contractions. What the driver did was illegal, he broke the law, but 9.9 times out of ten, the officer will not give a ticket because he's using his judgement. Granted, in this case, the kid did do something wrong. But to resort to a weapon to bring him under control is way too excessive. Like I said, you don't use your weapon on a person unless there's a reason to think someone will be under physical harm. What's next? You'll hear of kids on college campuses get tased because they were streaking?

Ultimatly, we all agree that what the kid was wrong. I certainly don't want to appear as though I'm defending what he did. However, the debate is on the consequences of the action. In a trial, they don't open a book and say "ah well he commited fraud so let's go to page number 342 for the penalty. Here he go : 3 months of detention". They have a judge or jury that listen to the arguments and decide on a penalty. The police officer does the same on the field in choosing what kind of tactic he will be using. And I don't agree at all with his decision.

 

I agree with your right to disagree with the cops decision, Triactus, but remember that the cop was in the moment -- he didn't have the time or data that we have to calmy look the situation over. Based on what he knows about the possibility of serious violence being perpetrated on someone on the field, I think his decision is fair and defensible.

There comes a point where there have to be consequences for breaking rules. People say I'm too strict or too harsh, but you cannot have a functioning society when people just do whatever the heck they want all the time. This kid knew what he was doing was 100% wrong but he's grown up being told that it's OK to break rules at will because of his "rights". Maybe now the little creep knows better.

 

Normally, chasing those guys is the domain of the security people, yes. I'm not sure why the police officer got involved, unless it was simply under the auspices of observing a crime and attempting to stop it. Usually the on-field cops at games (when they're there) are posted in places where there may be a greater perceived risk - the dugout where the manager is, the bullpen, etc., and they're there to stop anyone attacking those people. (Sort of the same thing as cops always standing around behind college football coaches and running on and off the field with them.)

As to tasing the guy, tasers are not deadly force weapons like firearms. They are tools used for subduing violent and unruly people. Personally I think that the matter should have been left to security to handle in the usual fashion (chase the guy down and drag him away), but if the cop got involved, I don't think the discretionary use of the taser was automatically inappropriate. It certainly solved the problem, no one was hurt, and the TV stations didn't have to come back from commercial to the spectacle of the guy still running around on the field.

Also, the police department is backing the officer and saying that his taser use fell under acceptable usage guidelines. You can criticize Philadelphia's taser policy if you want, but it sounds like the officer wasn't out of bounds in his observance of it.

I imagine a lawsuit will arise from this eventually though ... there's too much grey-area-potential-for-profit not to try.

p.s. I also don't particularly care for the 'all in good fun' argument. Those who take that position might feel differently if the fun-loving guy was doing it at your expense - on your property, at your business, using up your time and resources to be dealt with, etc.

 

And while I respect police officers have a decision to make in a split second, they have to show better judgment. And no, I don't buy the "he might have been violent" argument at all. If he had tased the kid as he was jumping unto the field, it would have made better sense. But he was running after a kid who was running in circles with a flag and a smile on his face. And he had been running for a short while. If the kid had been violent, he would have made a move or shown something by then. You can't assume the worst without cause.

As for the rest, come on. Yes the kid did something wrong and yes he does deserve punishment. Nobody is claiming the opposite. But tasing? It's entirely excessive and without cause. As I have said, there were no immediate threats, other than the one to the cop's ego since he couldn't catch the kid. I think that is closer to the truth.

 

That is an easy one T2. If the cop isn't sure he is dealing with a minor, he shouldn't perform any actions that he wouldn't normally do to a minor.

 

That's not very practical Blades.

I personally believe our police are too quick with the trigger (be it gun, Tazer, or pepper spray) but it's really impractical and downright dangerous to treat anyone who "looks young" and an innocent youth. There are thousands of gang bangers who would pop a cop in a heartbeat who are either minors or look like minors.