Tasing a ten year old... Wow!

Remove all ads!

But the officer cannot act in a shade of gray. He either does or he doesn't. It's a 0 (not using the taser) or a 1 (using the taser). He cannot kinda use the taser. Remember that he didn't tase the kid the minute he set a foot on the field. He initially tried to get him to stop by ordering him to do so. Then he chased after him and tried to catch him. It was only after the kid successfully eluded him a couple of times did he resort to the taser.

So I think the officer logically proceeded through a set of steps to stop him. By yelling at him to stop, he attempted to resolve the situation without using any force at all. It didn't work. Next, he went up a level in applied force by trying to catch him. That didn't work either. So now he proceeded to the next level of force in using a non-lethal weapon to subdue him. That got the job done.

Actually, what you say wouldn't happen almost certainly would. (Perhaps the legal system in Canada is different than the US in this regard.) I imagine trespassing and resisting arrest are summary offenses, or at worst, a misdemeanor. The only way it would be a felony is if he hit the police officer (which he didn't). So there never would have been a trial by jury, and he wouldn't even need a lawyer unless he wanted one - he would simply appear in front of a magistrate.

Secondly, with the exception of crimes that involve capital punishment, juries do NOT decide the penalty - the judge (or more likely the magistrate in this case) does.

Thirdly, in deciding on the punishment, the judge refers to case law, and gives a penalty similar to what others have received for doing the same thing, with whether or not there is a prior criminal history being a mitigating factor. So it really is as easy as looking it up in a book to determine the penalty. (Chances are, this kid doesn't have a criminal record, so he'd never go to jail - it would be a fine or community service.)

 

What the kid did know is this. That if you, as a minor, run onto the field, you will get in trouble, probably fined. He also knows that you don't get Tased. It has never happened before. So, if in his bad judgement that day, he decided a fine is acceptable to some fun, so be it. I would think getting Tased never crossed his mind. Otherwise, I doubt he would of ran ontot he field in the 1st place.

---------- Added 0 hours, 1 minutes and 23 seconds later... ----------

Gang Bangers don't attend Phillies games, sitting in the high end seats that give accessiblity to the field and they don't wear Khaki shorts either.

---------- Added 0 hours, 5 minutes and 15 seconds later... ----------

Exactly Aldeth. Nobody has ever been tased for running onto a baseball game. Nor should they. Bad judgement by the cop. It is not an offense that needs Tasing. There was more than one person chasing the kid and they didn't chase him for long. Firing the Taser wasn't necessary.

 

I think I covered that in the second paragraph of my previous post.

 

Yes, of course. But the shades of gray is not about tasing, it's about what to do in a certain situation. Yes the police officer can act in shades of gray and they do. They evaluate a situation and decide what is the appropriate way to resolve the situation. The moment they make a decision, it's a shade of gray. If they did not, it would be a very frustrating society.

That's where we disagree. I don't think the use of a taser was justified. There was no threat, so the use of a weapon is not warranted. How many people were on the field? They would have caught him eventually. The use of a taser is overreacting.

If the kid feels he was wronged, it's in his right to have a lawyer represent him.

uh, yeah. That's why I said "*judge* or jury"...

Yes, case law, legal precedents and criminal records play a part in sentencing. However, context also plays a big part in it. I'm not exactly sure how it works on your side of the border, but here, whenever you get a fine or speeding ticket or anything, if you don't agree with the ticket, you can go to court. There, you make your case with the judge. If you convince him you didn't deserve the ticket, he will not give it to you (because btw, a lot of fines for illegal parking tickets are dismissed because the "you can't park here" sign wasn't clear enough. The parking was illegal, but that is context).

And if the penalties were so automatic and clear cut, let's face it, the lawyers would be out of jobs...

 

Well, running into the field IS rather minor offense in the grand scheme of things. Thus the penalty for it is just fines.

However, the fine is supposed to act as a DETERRENT against the stunt. If the guy decides that he's willing to risk a fine, there's not strong enough deterrence. Hence, up the ante until the poor sod decides otherwise. Problem solved?

 

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/36974092/ns/sports-baseball/

So, the cop chased the kid for 30 seconds. 30. I guess if he lost a little weight, he could of lasted a little while longer in the chase? Pathetic.

 

That does pretty much sum it up - I think the use of the taser was justified, and I don't think we're making any progress of convincing one of us toward's the other's position.

Yes, he can have a lawyer if he wants one, but for small offenses people usually waive their right to an attorney. Similarly, if you go to court over a speeding ticket, you can bring your lawyer. I was just saying that because it wasn't a felony, he didn't necessarily need a lawyer. If he was facing anything beyond a fine or community service, then yeah, it would be dumb to not get a lawyer.

There is no "or" involved. Juries don't decide the punishment other than in capital crimes.

For things like speeding tickets, it works the same way here. However, in this case where there was a crime committed, he would be forced to appear in court in front of a judge. (It wouldn't be a criminal trial by jury though.)

That's what I'm trying to tell you - for crimes like this, the penalties are pretty clear cut - that's why most people don't get lawyers for summary offenses. (A summary offense is one where the penalty does not include jail time - it's a fine or community service.) If you are fighting a speeding or parking ticket, you generally don't hire a lawyer. The reason for this is simple: The fine involved is less than what the lawyer would charge for his services. Same thing here. When jail time is involved, you'd definitely want a lawyer.

 

Then we'll agree to disagree..

We're misunderstanding each other. I didn't mean "judge or jury" on the same case. I'm saying overall, it's either a judge or a jury that will decide the sentence, depending on the nature of the case.

What I'm saying is that the context of a given situation can have impact on the sentence. When you feel the fine or possible sentence is not just, you can explain it to the judge. It doesn't necessarily mean he will believe you, but context does play a role.

 

... and now he knows differently.

 

What's next? They'll tase people jaywalking?

 

I've seen worse Tri. When I worked in LA I watched a woman jaywalk in front of a cop. He was polite ... at first ... he told her she should wait for the crossing and she told him to **** off. He started to write her a citation, she tried to bolt, he stopped her, she hit him with her purse and he put her on the ground with his baton.

Moral of the story ... don't be a dumb ass with a cop. That includes trying to run from the cops at a ballgame.

 

While I don't think the baton was wholelly merited (did he hit her or something or did he just use it to hold her down?), it's defendable in the sense that he was attacked. I don't blame a cop who uses force when he genuinely feels threatened.

My beef with this situation here is the kid wasn't harming anyone. He was just annoying. He wasn't even trying to escape the police in the conventional sense. He was inside the stadium, he couldn't have escaped even if he wanted to. He was just running around to annoy security and see how long he could maintain it. I don't feel the tasing was merited because, as I have said before, no one was in danger. Of course you don't **** with a police officer. Anyone in their right mind don't. And the kid deserved whatever fine or community service they impose on him. But that doesn't give the police officer the right to use a weapon on someone because he's annoyed...

---------- Added 0 hours, 10 minutes and 44 seconds later... ----------

I just found this on Taser's website :

I think in this situation, we can throw "dangerous" and "high-risk" out of the picture. The "who poses a risk" bit also doesn't apply. Which leaves "combative" that is more or less applicable, depending on your definition of the word. Does running in circles with a smile is being combative? I don't think so. But even if it were, is being combative while posing no risk to anyone worthy of tasing? Again, I don't believe so.

 

Well, since the instance of the Tasing, the Phillies have changed the field security policy back to using their own security and have removed the police. Probably for the best, as it takes the possible use of a Taser out of the equation.

Also, I think T2 is right with his moral of the story quip in normal circumstances. Running onto the field is an annoying thing for the rest of us who are trying to enjoy the game and running from the cops is a dumb move.

 

Not necessarily. I kind of doubt that their uniformed security officers would be unarmed.

 

No Tasers for the Phillies on the field Security Guards. Confirmed on Philly Talk Radio today. Otherwise, why make the change? IT's either Tasers or no Tasers. Phillies brass doesn't want the bad media when things are going so well for them right now. Their is still a police presence in the stadium though, for knucklehead drunks, etc...

 

No tasers? What about mace? Pepper Spray? They better have something. If you ask me, unarmed security is no better than having no security at all.

 

They should have rocket launchers...

 

They do have "Rocket" Launchers. They Shoot T-Shirts up into the stands. Those things are awesome.

---------- Added 0 hours, 1 minutes and 22 seconds later... ----------

I prefer to see Taser wielders to be cops only. There are alot of idiot security guards out there that have no training in what is right and wrong.

 

security is supposed to be about brains, there isnt an armed private security officer in the UK

 

In the UK, not every Tom, Dick and Harry owns a gun or, for that matter a taser. In the US, both are easy to legally purchase. As such, our criminals are better armed than your criminals are, and "quick thinking" isn't much of a defense against a gunman or even a guy with a stun baton or taser. Unlike the UK, these things can be legally purchased by just about anyone (and there are plenty of exploitable loopholes for people who technically aren't allowed to make such purchases), and our security measures need to account for that.

I actually agree with you, and most security guards around here just carry pepper spray or mace. I, for one, think that's a pretty good idea.