This is just hi larious! Field runner gets tasered at a Phillies game

Amherst

zombie boy 2000 wrote: »

I think you have a very limited concept of "world". Maybe you should consider taking the occasional stroll out of your Platonic cave every once in a while lest you find yourself choking on so many absolutes.

Either that or you could eat a sandwich. I could care less.

Stuck a nerve..eh. :rolleyes:

zombie boy 2000

Amherst wrote: »

Stuck a nerve..eh. :rolleyes:

I suppose you have. Considering what used to be a fun and informative forum has suddenly devolved into a ultra-conservative circle jerk at nearly every opportunity.

Please feel free to eat the biscuit and take your political agenda to any number of other forums.

shawn474

maximillian wrote: »

The debate these days is whether or not tasers are lethal. According to Amnesty International, the USA reached 334 people who died after being tasered between 2001 and August 2008. This number should give law enforcement pause as to their indiscriminate use. I agree that tasers are less-lethal (thus better) than other types of force used to subdue someone, but to say that it is non-lethal is a misnomer.

This chump deserved to get tased. He ran onto the field knowing it was wrong and accepted whatever consequences. If they would have used non-lethal means (say tackling him) and he would have broken his neck on the fall. What then? Are officers supposed to get down on their hands and knees and beg someone to "Please stop breaking the law> My hands our ties as to what i can do, so I am resorting to politely asking you to quit this unlawful behavior." (Yes, I am being sarcastic).

You quote 334 deaths as a result of tasing. That is actually one of the most misleading facts to give. It only takes into account the number of deaths following tasing. It does not take into account pre-existing heart conditions, drugged up coke heads whose heart is racing 1,000 beats a minute, etc. Now, are we supposed to ask, "Excuse me before I tase you for resisting arrest and breaking the law, can I have a complete medical history including whether or not you have ingested an illegal drugs?" It's ludicrous really.

You don't want to get tased by the cops, stay in your seat, eat some peanuts and enjoy the game. You buying a ticket (no matter how expensive) doesn't entitle anyone to break the law.

maximillian

Demiurge wrote: »

They are non-lethal. You cite a statistic that even without another important statistic, which is the number of people tasered overall in that time period, seems incredibly small over 7 years.

Tell that to the 334 people who have died. Here is just one example. There are MANY on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iyBxSRE3_k

Demiurge wrote: »

They are
I also have to challenge the notion that they're used indiscriminately. Have you ever been tasered by the police? I haven't. It's a great way to subdue people that need to be subdued. Rather than chase this kid around they took him down with non-lethal force.

It's better to be tasered than shot, I will grant you that. But tasers are being used by police way too liberally. Since there is evidence that people have died (and quite a bit of people too) then I would just ask for a little restraint.

There are LOADS of videos of people on youtube being tasered for minor things. Used indiscriminately??? Check out the New Orleans cop behind the fence in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jvhp4iZFd0

Or this officer that couldn't handle a 72 year old woman:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xv91_VC2L3w&feature=fvw

Or this guy who is obeying the police officer's instructions, but why not taser him anyways:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjM2d20He2Q

Or why not tase a blind woman:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDbdhv_cl1E

Or a woman already in the police station:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtG-KZJ_luY


Then there is this woman that was tasered for failing to obey the cop's instructions during a routine traffic stop. BTW, if you read the whole story about why she was even pulled over you can see that the cop was wrong on so many levels. She failed to follow the officer's instructions, but there is NO way she deserved to be tasered.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7uudtvX8yo

There are many, many more examples on youtube. There are many cases also mentioned in this article:

http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/report/tasers-potentially-lethal-and-easy-abuse-20081216


Again, I don't think taser's should NOT be used. I think they are a great alternative to being shot. I would rather be tasered than shot. However, law enforcement shouldn't use them as liberally as they currently do, especially since so many people have died. There is a definite threat level that must be achieved before a police officer pulls his firearm. This is because there are serious consequences to its use. Law enforcement currently do not regard a taser in such a manner. I would think that they would have some guidelines for the use of a taster


And yes I think someday I may be tased. Again, youtube has all sorts of videos where simply giving a verbal "no" to an officer equals non compliance which results in a tasering. Check out this shopper at Bestbuy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdCUdR8qNF4

shawn474

maximillian wrote: »

However, law enforcement shouldn't use them as liberally as they currently do, especially since so many people have died.

And how liberally do you THINK they use them? That's pretty arbitrary don't you think? Think about how many routine traffic stops, reports and citations are issued daily and then think how many times a taser is discharged. I would GUARANTEE that the ratio is minute. So what exactly is liberal use? Sure there are instances where it is used and should not have been. But, I would say that there are probably many more times where tey were justified to use them according to policy, but did not. You guys make it sound like these are vigilante cops who take every opportunity to discharge their taser to get their rocks off.

bobman1235

maximillian wrote: »

Tell that to the 334 people who have died. Here is just one example. There are MANY on youtube:

As stated before, that stat is meaningless.

Hell, according to this study, 126 kids died from playing sports in a 10 year period, does that mean you can reasonably call recreational sports a "lethal activity?" No, it means given a large enough sample set, **** happens.

Over a 10-yr period, July 1983-June 1993, nontraumatic sports deaths were reported in 126 high school athletes (115 males and 11 females) and 34 college athletes (31 males and 3 females).

ShinAce

How is tasing someone who's running full speed any safer than tackling him, or my favorite, pepper spray.

Dude's running full speed...check
Dude gets hit with a paralyzing jolt...check
Dude is going to go down HARD, no doubt...check

Yes, I see how he's way better off going down from a taser then a good manhandling. He can't even break his fall or anything.

I still can't stop laughing at the cop. Would he have used his taser if he wasn't so fat? The kid posterized that cop!

Face

Tackling someone greatly increases the chance of injury for both parties. Taser vs. pepper spray, about 10% of the population is unaffected by pepper spray. Also, someone really high on drugs or psychotic will usually be unaffected too.

maximillian

bobman1235 wrote: »

As stated before, that stat is meaningless.

Hell, according to this study, 126 kids died from playing sports in a 10 year period, does that mean you can reasonably call recreational sports a "lethal activity?" No, it means given a large enough sample set, **** happens.

Your're right, the stat is meaningless to the victims and their families. It doesn't matter how minuscule the statistic is to them since from their point of view it's 100%.

Comparing tasering from an officer to playing sports is stupid. One item is a voluntary choice, the other is not. One is a choice, the other is an abuse. Using that same logic one could argue that spousal abuse happens; sh%t happens, right? Why stop it, it's going to happen.

shawn474 wrote: »

But, I would say that there are probably many more times where tey were justified to use them according to policy, but did not. You guys make it sound like these are vigilante cops who take every opportunity to discharge their taser to get their rocks off.

According to what policy? They are used whenever the officer wants to use them; it's their discretion and the bar is set too low. I think all the video links I have posted shows this trend. There should be a policy; not with a use standard as a firearm, but it should be set higher than it currently is.

Vigilante cops... they probably exist but are few in number. I am more concerned about cops who lose their temper in a stressful condition. Here's some cases:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnwi6wO03As
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lB_Hl4bcQNc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_AZ3J9gtFY

Again, LOTS more examples out there.

You're right, these cases are the minority, just sucks when it happens to you.

Face

I also do all my research on youtube, it's the new wiki.

Demiurge

maximillian wrote: »

Tell that to the 334 people who have died.

As I pointed out the number is misleading because it isn't given in any context. What was the number of people who were tased vs the number of deaths? Isn't it presumptive to say that the act of being tased caused these deaths and not other factors? How many of these people were geeked out on crank or other narcotics?

You and I both know that hardly anyone dies as a result of being tasered. The fact someone has doesn't automatically translate into tasers being lethal.

No matter how you feel about tasers, this kid put himself in the position for it to happen.

ryanjoachim

Face wrote: »

I also do all my research on youtube, it's the new wiki.

I try to stick to The Onion. It's my only source of factual news.

Jstas

maximillian, your arguments are so full of fallacies and false logic that I don't know where to start. I begin digging down in toone and I find it related to another one and it just daisy chains from there.

The people who died are a small percentage of the number of people who have been subdued by TASER. You're playing to statistics and spinning the facts in your favor. That is a form of a number of different fallacies. Just because several hundred people died with dubious correlations to the affects of being subdued with a TASER doesn't mean that we should ignore the tens of thousands of people who have been subdued by TASER with no ill-effects. You are harping on a point that you do not have the statistical data to back up.

IIRC, you are one of the people who perpetuates the same argument about the automobile industry where you falsely claim that one company is better than the other and cite error rates which, when statistically examined, show that the error rate is actually within the margin of error and thereby making it the same.

Equally so, playing to the emotions of others by magnifying a small statistic by way of calling on the strife of the families over their loss is also a fallacy. No one is saying that the loss wasn't a tragedy. They are taking exception to your presentation of this fallacy as a fact that warrants greater statistical weight than its given. On top of that, you throw out an arbitrary number with no justification for that number nor do you have any evidence showing that the number is what you say it is. 334 people have died. You claim that it is due to the fact that they were subdued by TASER. Yet you offer no evidence to back up that claim aside from YouTube videos of news reports. That's not evidence of your claim, it is just evidence that someone was subdued by TASER.

Are there people who have misused the TASER? Yes, there are. No one is marginalizing that. However, you are making a mountain out of a mole hill by claiming that the small percentage of abuse and misuse is grounds to throw out the over-whelming evidence of safe, effective use as folly and ban the use of TASERs. That is also another fallacy.

I want to go on but it's time for me to pack up and head home so I'll stop here. I think I've given enough of a logic lesson to show where you are losing your argument.




For everyone else, TASER is an acronym. It stands for "Thomas A. Swift's Electric Rifle." and it was the name given to the device by it's developer, Jack Cover. Because it is an acronym, it is grammatically incorrect to use it as a verb. You cannot "tase" someone nor can you "taser" someone. You can subdue someone with a TASER or you can attack someone with a TASER. You cannot taser someone with a TASER.

ryanjoachim

maximillian wrote: »

Your're right, the stat is meaningless to the victims and their families. It doesn't matter how minuscule the statistic is to them since from their point of view it's 100%.

Comparing tasering from an officer to playing sports is stupid. One item is a voluntary choice, the other is not. One is a choice, the other is an abuse. Using that same logic one could argue that spousal abuse happens; sh%t happens, right? Why stop it, it's going to happen.

So according to your logic, if someone dies from a heart attack brought on by over-exertion from running from the police, it's the police's fault for chasing him/her?

I mean, it's the cop's choice to run after the suspect right?

Everyone knows that cops have TASERS (thanks for the history lesson Jstas!) now. Just like everyone knows they have pepper spray and guns. If you consciously break the law, then you are automatically aware that you have the possibility of being shot/shot with a TASER/pepper sprayed. Whichever it is depends solely on the cop.

Whichever happens is entirely your fault (not counting blatantly bad decisions by cops sometimes).

And I want to point out that the kid was actually less likely to hurt himself by falling in that situation (being hit with a TASER) than if he had fallen or been tackled. Studies have proven that a large number of broken bones (even deaths) cause by accidents were due to the person tensing up just before the impact. If they had relaxed their body they had a much lower chance of injury.

FiveORacing

Jstas wrote: »

Another guy ran on the field last night.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/20100504_Another_fan_on_Phillies_field__but_no_Taser_used.html

I heard this morning that he had some kind of illegal drug in his pocket but I have been unable to find a news story to corroborate that.

He had a bag of POT in his pocket.:rolleyes:

ShinAce

Jstas wrote: »

For everyone else, TASER is an acronym. It stands for "Thomas A. Swift's Electric Rifle." and it was the name given to the device by it's developer, Jack Cover. Because it is an acronym, it is grammatically incorrect to use it as a verb. You cannot "tase" someone nor can you "taser" someone. You can subdue someone with a TASER or you can attack someone with a TASER. You cannot taser someone with a TASER.

Just to nitpic.

Laser is also an acronym and is used liberally. Lasing cavity, etc...
It's also used as a verb. Yes, to lase!

Society will find a way to misuse acronyms and make it ok.

Disc Jockey

Jstas wrote: »

For everyone else, TASER is an acronym. It stands for "Thomas A. Swift's Electric Rifle." and it was the name given to the device by it's developer, Jack Cover. Because it is an acronym, it is grammatically incorrect to use it as a verb. You cannot "tase" someone nor can you "taser" someone. You can subdue someone with a TASER or you can attack someone with a TASER. You cannot taser someone with a TASER.

Actually, you can tase someone. Just like you can lase something with a laser. Other than that, I agree with your post. (Which I'm sure is a great relief to you. )

Edit: I guess I'm a liitle slow here. ShinAce said it already. Not only do we misuse them. We misuse them enough to get them in the dictionary. Ain't that a kick in the pants.

ryanjoachim

I remember fondly when "D'oh!" was added into the dictionary for a while.

hearingimpared

Just a another thought IMHO. In those vids posted by Maximillian in every case the offender was either combative or not following the officer's instuction and then become combative. The one that really cracked me up was the naked guy running around and having to be tased (sorry John, haven't studied the correct usage yet) several times. If you look closley in the beginning of that vid there are crack vials and bags all over the ground. Seems to me the naked guy was so hopped up on crack that he was 1) running around naked, 2) banging on people's doors, 3) running from the cops 4) took four shots of a taser to subdue him. . .that is real normal behavior. He is lucky he was tased instead of being shot it the leg.

The only vid that could posibly be made a case for unnecessary tazing is where the man had his hands on the hood of the car, but God knows what led up to him being in that position and it wasn't clear as what the guy was saying to the police.

There's a lesson to be learned here and it is not just don't break the law. It also is that the police have a job to do and it your duty as a citizen to follow their instructions whether you feel that you are being treated unfairly or not. If you are, it will come out on police car tapes or in court if there is no tape. So just do as your told in these instances and you will not have any chance of being tazed.

Don't get beligerent, don't become combative and most of all don't scream and holler at a police officer. It is true that you DO NOT have to make any statements to the police after your Miranda rights have been read and you shouldn't without a lawyer present, but before that occurs you need to behave like a civilized person when dealing with the police or you run the risk of being seen as a common criminal..

bobman1235

maximillian wrote: »

Comparing tasering from an officer to playing sports is stupid.

You're right, the comparison is meaningless to the victims and their families. :rolleyes:

Jstas did a fine job pointing out your flood of flawed logic, so I'm not going to bother expanding on it. Playing the "people died" and "feel bad for the victims" card is a load of crap. You can apply that to the most miniscule things, and people do - such as with vaccinations (the .0001% of people who are affected negatively somehow overshadow the millions who are helped, but since there are victims....). It's a load of horse crap.

Kex

maximillian wrote: »

... But tasers are being used by police way too liberally. Since there is evidence that people have died (and quite a bit of people too) then I would just ask for a little restraint. ...

You certainly show some of the examples of the bad use of a TASER (thank you for correcting my sinful ways, Jstas), but I don't see why the example in the O.P. would qualify.

zombie boy 2000 wrote: »

... Considering what used to be a fun and informative forum has suddenly devolved into a ultra-conservative circle jerk at nearly every opportunity. ...

Relax ZB. So maybe there has been a bit of a Tea Party, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Becky kind of atmosphere of late in some threads, but you've been around long enough to know that it's no reason to get upset, and I don't see this issue as a left vs. right issue in any case (although some may have attempted to make it thus).

maximillian

Face wrote: »

I also do all my research on youtube, it's the new wiki.

Many of the vids are TV news reports. Some are Police dash cams. Then some are videos of bystanders which, true could be edited, but still show with video what is going on. I posted one article from Amnesty International. You shouldn't simply discount what I have posted just because it's on youtube.

For the rest that says my logic is flawed... how about posting some other source like I did. Anything to back up your claims. Otherwise it is just your opinion.

I have not argued that all tasers should not be used. I think they are a good tool for law enforcement. All I said is that there are circumstances where better discretion should have been used. Police abuse is not a myth and the videos show it.

Finally, sorry that I cannot agree with you guys when I see an officer use a taser on an elderly or a blind person because the person doesn't want to cooperate.

Sorry for my rants. I will stop now. You can reply if you wish but I have shared what I wanted to say.

Kex

maximillian wrote: »

... Finally, sorry that I cannot agree with you guys when I see an officer use a taser on an elderly or a blind person because the person doesn't want to cooperate. ...

This, I actually agree with, FWIW.

P.S. I mean the NOT using the TASER on these people part!

mrbigbluelight

Jstas wrote: »

Oh, come on! I use a TASER on myself all the time! It's fun! Sometimes, when I'm having "happy time" with zombie boy, I have him squeeze that trigger and ZZZZRRRRTTT!!! I'm off in la-la land!

Only problem is, sometimes I wake up and that pumpkin pie haircutted freak from "No Country For Old Men" is standing over me but he sounds like Abe Vigoda in "Joe Versus The Volcano" and he's shouting at me and asking me where his socks are. How the hell am I supposed to know? It gets really freaky when I wake up and I have a Little Bo Peep outfit on but I have no idea where the octopus came from, why it is cowering in the corner or why it has those sad "Precious Moments" eyes. Sometimes it sounds like it's faintly crying and whimpering to itself.

I feel dirty

Now I have to give an enthusiastic "Two Thumbs Up" on that post. That was most impressive !!

Jstas wrote: »

I want to go on but it's time for me to pack up and head home so I'll stop here. I think I've given enough of a logic lesson to show where you are losing your argument.

Uhm ..... well ..... I don't know if I can agree with you on that, Jstas. I'm going to take one thumb back.

Jstas wrote: »

For everyone else, TASER is an acronym. It stands for "Thomas A. Swift's Electric Rifle." and it was the name given to the device by it's developer, Jack Cover. Because it is an acronym, it is grammatically incorrect to use it as a verb. You cannot "tase" someone nor can you "taser" someone. You can subdue someone with a TASER or you can attack someone with a TASER. You cannot taser someone with a TASER.

Dangit .... I'm taking another thumb back .......

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tase

Main Entry: tase
Pronunciation: \ˈtāz\
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): tased; tas·ing
Usage: often capitalized
Etymology: back-formation from Taser
Date: 1991
: to shoot with a Taser gun

mrbigbluelight

I do have to say that after viewing numbers of Taser-related videos on the net, I came across one that changed my opinion on the use of Tasers. Here it is:


TASE ME BRO











After viewing that video, it should be pretty obvious that yes, Taser use doesn't have to be restricted to merely protective situations.
No, break out a good ol' X26 Taser and you got all the makings for a good ol' fashioned good ol' boy showdown hoedown !!!!

Yee-hah !

hearingimpared

maximillian wrote: »

Finally, sorry that I cannot agree with you guys when I see an officer use a taser on an elderly or a blind person because the person doesn't want to cooperate.

Kex wrote: »

This, I actually agree with, FWIW.

P.S. I mean the NOT using the TASER on these people part!

Let's see here; pre taser days. The elderly woman resisting arrest and being confrontational to the police would have had to be man handled and possibly wrestled to the ground then had her arms yanked behind her to get cuffed. The taser makes that sound pretty tame.

The blind woman; well as stated in the vid, the police didn't know she was blind and it is very unfortunate that she was robbed and beaten by creeps who claimed to be policemen but how were they to know. One could argue that the robbing incident was reported to the police but could one be sure that the police arriving on the scene would know about it? Should they have done to her what I described above to subdue her? Again I think the harmless effect of the taser was the lesser of the two necessary evils.

Would I want my mom (RIP) tasered?, hell no, would I be pist? hell yeah but once the facts were presented if she were resisting arrest or just plain out of control well I might have to step back and think about that one but being her son I would still feel angry that it happend.

It not all cut and dry and afterall the police are highly trained to use the least amount of force necessary . . . but they are still human.

wz2p7j

Jstas wrote: »

No, see, genius, everything I wrote came from my brain. I quoted Wikipedia because it was the first link that came up when I asked Google to tell me how a TASER worked.

If everything came from your, ahem, "brain" then why did you have to ask Google to "tell you how a TASER worked?"

Your words, not mine. You're pretty funny sometimes Jstas.

I like most of the rest of your posts, though. I mean that seriously. :)

Take care, Chris

BeRad

I'm at a loss to understand the big deal with running out on to the field (or at least how big of a deal it has become). Isn't nothing more than trespassing? I would just let the kid run out of breath and give him 24 hour lockup and 1000 dollar fine for every 10 seconds he is on the field. Better yet, 24 hour community service for every 10 seconds, perhaps cleaning up the stands and bathrooms.

If it is deemed appropriate to stun someone who interrupts a game, what will be the next privately-run event whose security will be allowed to stun those who temporarily disrupt the proceedings?

I definitely don't feel sorry for the kid and I wouldn't feel sorry for him if he were seriously injured either; when you break the rules, don't expect everything to be peachy. But taser use sure seems to be overkill for something that has been going on for decades. If people being on the field is really that big of a deal, build a 10' lexan fence to keep people in the stands.

maximillian

Gotta post one more. I will embed this one since I think many of you didn't watch the other videos. Raise your hand if you don't think this is ridiculous.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/LOejTqEJgKY&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/LOejTqEJgKY&hl=en_US&fs=1&&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Gotta love how the police captain said it was for the kid's protection. There's tons of this kind of crap out there.

Demiurge

Ah, yes...."no big deal," until of course these harmless people do damage to someone or someone's property, right?

Home ain't what it used to be (Sept. 24, 1999)



In the sixth inning of an Astros-Brewers game in Milwaukee, a 23-year-old fan ran onto the field and jumped Houston right fielder Bill Spiers, a former Brewer. As he tried to shake him off, his teammates came to the rescue, led by Mike Hampton, who got in some nasty kicks. Spiers suffered whiplash and was bloodied and bruised. The fan was arrested and held on a $250,000 in bail on charges of battery and disorderly conduct.

"In all my years of baseball, I've never heard or seen anything like that," said Brewers interim manager Jim Lefebvre. "To be honest, it's almost horrifying. It was just a terrible, isolated incident."

Cowardly cretins at Comiskey (Sept. 19, 2002)







Here's a manly act: pre-plan an attack on the opposing team's first-base coach, who's 20 years older than you, facing the other direction, and outnumbered two-to-one. That was William Ligue Jr.'s plan when he and his 15-year-old son charged Royals coach Tom Gamboa in the ninth inning after taunting the coach throughout the game.

Ligue had called his sister in advance and bragged to her that he'd be on TV. He and Ligue the III (watch out, they breed!) knocked Gamboa down and pummeled him.

Neifi Perez led the Royals in subduing the Ligues until the cops hauled them off.

The Ligues were charged with aggravated battery and mob action. The teen got five years probation. His father pleaded guilty and got 30 months probation. Gamboa suffered a permanent hearing loss.

1993: Tennis star stabbed

The world number one women's tennis player, Monica Seles, has been stabbed in the back during a quarter-final match in Hamburg.
The 19-year-old American star was rushed to hospital with a wound half an inch (1.5cm) deep in her upper back. Doctors said her injuries were serious, but not life-threatening.

"She was very lucky," said the tournament doctor, Peter Wind. "Neither the lungs nor the shoulder blades were affected. Monica is still suffering from shock, and will stay overnight for observation."