Good Move Jolt him!
Bad Move He Caused No Harm!
You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo
Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
I'll admit I may have cross-pollinated your post with another, but I was responding to the following in your post:No I didn't bring up safety issues, that was you. I said it was best to just tackle the guy.
No one was going to get hurt, what the **** is the guy gonna do?Parent and children agree to it, why not?So are you ok with little kids using tazers during pickup tackle football games?
Tazering stopped him quickly without harming anyone. Problem solved. That there may have been other ways to solve the situation doesn't negate the fact that the way it was handled was successful, not harmful, and efficient.You see in the end the "safety" arguments of all flavors are bull**** arguments that don't pan out to reality. We have to ask, why was he tazered? For trespassing during an social entertainment event which he paid to get into. Perhaps in that case, tazering is not all the called for. Especially when the guy is outnumbered and chased down. Just tackle the guy. No more of these BS excuses over "safety". Fact is this has happened numerous times before, it will happen numerous times later. And this is one of the very rare, few cases in which the guy running on the field wasn't tackled. And guess what? Not a bunch of people getting hurt, no players getting thrown on DL because of it, etc. So let's take this for what it is and not go into absurd hyperbole to try to excuse the actions of the police state. Tazering was not necessary.
Maybe pansy-asses shouldn't run onto the field.
Another thing I dislike about the public is the stupidity of the number of officers dealing with someone.
6 officers = 6 more people to get injured if the incident got physical (fighting) and a tazer wasn't used.
6 officers = 6 times more likely to cause physical injury (something a tazer does not, except in freak accidents) during a physical confrontation.
Also, this argument stinks of an attitude that "Its the officers job to get hurt, the more officers the more we can afford to get hurt doing stuff the hard way"
Its not a fair fight and isn't supposed to be.
But it doesn't matter if there is one, six, twelve, or twenty four officers (although by then they'd have a perimeter on the kid). The risk of injury is all the same regardless of how many officers are present if the confrontation gets physical.
Also, "why" doesn't really matter. If someone assaults an officers after a robbery, or after stealing a pack of bubble gum is all the same, they are both getting the tazer.
Now for the sake of morons and idiots I have to add a disclaimer that I already stated the use of the tazer was not necessary in this case, as he was only fleeing and not physically threatening or attacking officers. I just can't ****ing stand it when idiots talk about how many officers there are, as if the risks go away when more show up and the person still acts the same.