• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Phillies Fan Tasered - Good Move or Bad Move?

Phillies Fan Tasered - Good Move or Bad Move?

  • Good Move Jolt him!

    Votes: 26 65.0%

  • Bad Move He Caused No Harm!

    Votes: 11 27.5%

  • Other

    Votes: 3 7.5%
  • Total voters
    40
LiberalAvenger said:
Sweet! Now there is going to be a new 94 pound ten year old millionaire in Indiana soon.:roll:
Click to expand...

nah...not when people read the whole accounting of the saga of this 10 year old and his violent tendencies. (Didnt we already discuss this thread once?)
 
VanceMack said:
nah...not when people read the whole accounting of the saga of this 10 year old and his violent tendencies. (Didnt we already discuss this thread once?)
Click to expand...

I don't recall.:screwy
 
roguenuke said:
I figure tasering him was probably a lot safer than tackling him.
Click to expand...

Does anyone who keeps saying this actually have any proof of validation of this? It seems to me that kids are tackling and worse from a very young age, people do it as adults too. And while some injury may occur, it is not often. While tazers do not have a high death rate, they have one which is non-zero. So we keep saying this line, but no one has proven it to be true. It's like we're trying our damnedest to excuse excessive force from the military arm of the government.

In the end this guy got tazed from trespassing when a simple tackle would have been more than sufficient.

roguenuke said:
Delaying the game because the guards didn't want to use a pretty safe method of stopping such a person could have easily caused complaints and cut into the profits of the park and/or ball club. Most of the spectators paid to see a baseball game, and even if the kid running around for a few minutes could have been considered an okay or even welcome pause of the game, eventually it would have gotten old, if it hadn't by the time they actually did stop him. People would have gotten restless and some probably would have gotten angry.
Click to expand...

Have you been to a baseball game recently? The majority of what goes on is nothing. There's tons of dead space. So a guy runs out on the field...time to get another beer or use the pisser. It wouldn't have lasted too long, a few minutes at most. There would be no cut into profits or any of that. There would be cheers and boos for the dude, they would have tackled him, cuffed him, drug him off the field, and that's the end of it. Happened TONS of times before, will happen a TON of times after. There is zero need for the tazer.
 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
Does anyone who keeps saying this actually have any proof of validation of this? It seems to me that kids are tackling and worse from a very young age, people do it as adults too. And while some injury may occur, it is not often. While tazers do not have a high death rate, they have one which is non-zero. So we keep saying this line, but no one has proven it to be true. It's like we're trying our damnedest to excuse excessive force from the military arm of the government.
Click to expand...
Football has a non-zero death rate too. And a MUCH higher injury rate. 40,000 concussions per year, 16 or so deaths on average per year, 200 cervical cord injuries per year, and close to 70 cerebral injuries. From... tackling! ;)

Fact is, tazing the guy put him at minimal risk and zero risk to anyone else.

In the end this guy got tazed from trespassing when a simple tackle would have been more than sufficient.
Click to expand...
Sure! If you wanted to risk concussion, broken bones, torn muscles, bruises - internal and external. But it surely would have worked too.
 
Regarding the discussion of tackle vs. taser:

Taser was the best option.

The guy shouldn't have been there, would not leave on his own, and thus had to be removed forcibly.

The taser option presented the least potential for harm.

Tackling had the potential to harm both the tackler and the one tackled, with the probability of greater harm to both than a taser shock.

Tasing had the potential to only harm the one tasered, with the probability of less harm than a tackle.

So, overall it seems to have been a good move.
 
rivrrat said:
Football has a non-zero death rate too. And a MUCH higher injury rate. 40,000 concussions per year, 16 or so deaths on average per year, 200 cervical cord injuries per year, and close to 70 cerebral injuries. From... tackling! ;)
Click to expand...

Weren't you the one who brought up that professional athletes are on a different stage than normal people? Hell if I were built like Urlacher, you'd better watch that I don't tackle you either.
 
Ikari said:
Weren't you the one who brought up that professional athletes are on a different stage than normal people? Hell if I were built like Urlacher, you'd better watch that I don't tackle you either.
Click to expand...

1) Those aren't all professional, the stats include high school, college, and 'sandbox'
2) The fact that they're trained and wearing protective equipment and STILL get injured only further proves my point.
 
rivrrat said:
2) The fact that they're trained and wearing protective equipment and STILL get injured only further proves my point.
Click to expand...

They have to wear those pads and helmets because those folk are trained from a young age. And they body train a lot. A professional football player can generate ludicrous forces going full speed. But that's the point of it all. They're going all out and smashing into another person. A take down or tackle doesn't have to employ full force and can be an effective means of getting someone safely to the ground. If Ray Lewis was out there running out there full speed about to level the guy...yeah, I would be more inclined to agree with you. But in so much as it was police officers who have training in taking suspects to the ground, then not so much.
 
Ikari said:
They have to wear those pads and helmets because those folk are trained from a young age. And they body train a lot. A professional football player can generate ludicrous forces going full speed. But that's the point of it all. They're going all out and smashing into another person. A take down or tackle doesn't have to employ full force and can be an effective means of getting someone safely to the ground. If Ray Lewis was out there running out there full speed about to level the guy...yeah, I would be more inclined to agree with you. But in so much as it was police officers who have training in taking suspects to the ground, then not so much.
Click to expand...
Even given the training police/guards might have had in how to take someone down, I think the taser option is the safer option.

Why do you not think so?

It seems obvious to me that it is safer.

Am I missing something?
 
Is this poll and the results typical of today's American people?
That a majority would want the 17 year old crucified?
Lets hope not, else I must move to Canada. :confused:
 
The Mark said:
Even given the training police/guards might have had in how to take someone down, I think the taser option is the safer option.

Why do you not think so?

It seems obvious to me that it is safer.

Am I missing something?
Click to expand...

It's undue pain and has risk of death associated with it when something like a tackle or a take down would have must less risk associated with it and is well more called for during a trespassing crime where the suspect was not actually posing a threat to anyone.
 
earthworm said:
Is this poll and the results typical of today's American people?
That a majority would want the 17 year old crucified?
Lets hope not, else I must move to Canada. :confused:
Click to expand...

See ya! Say hi to the moose. You might want to leave your drama queen crown at home tho unless you move to the big cities. I hear there are some rugged folk up in the north country.

Seriously...who the hell is suggesting he be crucified? He was a stupid 17 year old that committed a stupid act and he was tased and arrested...he is already at home with mommy and daddy (where i hope his dad whipped his ass or at LEAST took away his cell phone and PS3 for a while). He will face a little punishment...mommy and daddy will pay his little fine...and all will be well with the world. As it should be.

The problem is the whiny bitches that think the poor little 'child' was mistreated and should really just be held and nursed an understood...and think the cop should be criucified for stopping the kid from showing his ass.
 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
It's undue pain and has risk of death associated with it when something like a tackle or a take down would have must less risk associated with it and is well more called for during a trespassing crime where the suspect was not actually posing a threat to anyone.
Click to expand...
You think a tackle doesn't have undue pain and risk of death involved?
 
Taze him. That said.................
dont-taze-me-bro.jpg
 
The Mark said:
You think a tackle doesn't have undue pain and risk of death involved?
Click to expand...

Not death, not at the speeds and forces we're talking about here. Maybe painful...but a lot less painful than being electrocuted.
 
Ikari said:
Maybe you can show me where I said it had to be a fair fight? Can you? No? That's right cause I didn't. So if you want to stop trying to assume things and go off of what is written, that would be great. kthanks. The point was that they didn't need to taze him. They had him chased down, they had him out numbered, a simple tackle would have sufficed.
Click to expand...
A simple tackle could have caused serious injury to both the officer who did the tackling as well as the individual being tackled if they landed improperly. What is it going to take for you to understand that? Do I have to provide photos of the injury I received when tackling a suspect after being assaulted by him instead of just tazing him?




Why always matters. The State has presumption of guilt. They initiate force, they are suspect, they need to answer. Why is very important. Though not to anything which was being said. My point there was to put in perspective the act of tazering the guy and the reason for it. It wasn't assault he got tazed for, so please try to be consistent and honest. It was trespassing.
Click to expand...
I already said that in this case the tazer was not appropriate. However the "why" doesn't matter if the suspect is physically threatening or assaulting officers and refusing to obey commands after an offense. Whether that offense be trespassing, robbery, or larceny of a 25 cent pack of bubble gum.



I can't stand when idiots can't read and the assume things which were not said so they can make a dumb ass rant about something which didn't exist. ****ing idiots.
Click to expand...
Yeah, **** those guys.
 
barefootguy said:
6 or 7 security guards against 1 drunk fan. Using a weapon such as a taser was completely unnecessary.
Click to expand...


Can you explain to me how the number of guards involved in attempting to catch him has to do with anything?
 
Ikari said:
Does anyone who keeps saying this actually have any proof of validation of this? It seems to me that kids are tackling and worse from a very young age, people do it as adults too. And while some injury may occur, it is not often. While tazers do not have a high death rate, they have one which is non-zero. So we keep saying this line, but no one has proven it to be true. It's like we're trying our damnedest to excuse excessive force from the military arm of the government.
Click to expand...
The chance of dying from the tazer is low enough to be considered in the freak accident levels (didn't zyph put up a comparison on this already). While the chance of injury from tackling... well, just look at how often football is delayed due to injuries..... and they are wearing pads.
If the risk of dying was so high, it would't be a requirement for law enforcement to be tazed themselves before they can use the device. And cities would be getting sued over a family member's "cop in training" dying from its use. Go look up some statistics that don't come from your paranoid anarchy blog websites on the tazer for more info, you know, learn something.


In the end this guy got tazed from trespassing when a simple tackle would have been more than sufficient.
Click to expand...
Until the tackle caused the kids arm go bend a strange way and then break when the large security guard's weight fully hit him. Then you'd be screaming about how these guards are so abusive. Its a lose-lose situation with paranoid anarchy folks.




There is zero need for the tazer.
Click to expand...
There is zero need to tackle the scrawny kid and break his arm on accident.

If you ask the kid if he'd rather have an appendage in a cast or have two little puncture holes on his back/chest. Which do you think he would choose?
 
The Mark said:
Even given the training police/guards might have had in how to take someone down, I think the taser option is the safer option.

Why do you not think so?

It seems obvious to me that it is safer.

Am I missing something?
Click to expand...


You are missing the paranoia of Ikari thinking that if there is any freak risk of death to someone from its use than we cannot use it.

Starting immediately, we shall revoke any parent's privilege to have a TV weighing over 10 pounds because 25 infants per year get killed from a TV falling on them.
 
earthworm said:
Is this poll and the results typical of today's American people?
That a majority would want the 17 year old crucified?
Lets hope not, else I must move to Canada. :confused:
Click to expand...


I thought we just stated he should be tazed. I saw nothing about crusification..

I must be the one who is missing something here.
 
Ikari said:
It's undue pain and has risk of death associated with it when something like a tackle or a take down would have must less risk associated with it and is well more called for during a trespassing crime where the suspect was not actually posing a threat to anyone.
Click to expand...


Yes, lets break an arm or leg trying to tackle someone.

Do some research on officer injuries involved in subjects resisting arrest. Its obvious you know nothing about it.

You always hear about the "poor kid" or the "poor suspect" and the injuries they received for being a ****ing moron and failing to comply with lawful orders, but the news media never tells you that the officer got injured.
 
Ikari said:
Not death, not at the speeds and forces we're talking about here. Maybe painful...but a lot less painful than being electrocuted.
Click to expand...

Do you know how painful being tazed is?

Have you ever been?

I have......
 
Ikari said:
Not death, not at the speeds and forces we're talking about here. Maybe painful...but a lot less painful than being electrocuted.
Click to expand...
But the Taser causes the guards/police no pain, thus reducing overall potential for harm.

And I disagree that there is no chance of death.

There is ALWAYS a chance of a freak occurrence that results in death...especially when two or more humans moving at run (or even walk) speed collide.

I refer to my previous post, with a few modifications:

The taser option has the potential to result in injury/pain for the person tasered. A small potential for death also exists.

The tackle option has not only the potential but the probability to result in injury/pain for both the person tackled and the person doing the tackling. A small potential for death also exists.

Thus, my take on it is that tasering someone is almost always going to be the better option.
 
I dont think it was needed.Although there are lots of violent assholes id love to see tasered.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom