- Joined
- Dec 23, 2009
- Messages
- 16,881
- Reaction score
- 2,980
- Location
- virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Private
A totally shocking thread !opcorn2:
Sweet! Now there is going to be a new 94 pound ten year old millionaire in Indiana soon.:roll:
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?)
I figure tasering him was probably a lot safer than tackling him.
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.
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!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.
Sure! If you wanted to risk concussion, broken bones, torn muscles, bruises - internal and external. But it surely would have worked too.In the end this guy got tazed from trespassing when a simple tackle would have been more than sufficient.
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!
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.
2) The fact that they're trained and wearing protective equipment and STILL get injured only further proves my point.
Even given the training police/guards might have had in how to take someone down, I think the taser option is the safer option.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.
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.
You think a tackle doesn't have undue pain and risk of death involved?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.
You think a tackle doesn't have undue pain and risk of death involved?
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?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.
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.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.
Yeah, **** those guys.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.
6 or 7 security guards against 1 drunk fan. Using a weapon such as a taser was completely unnecessary.
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.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.
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.In the end this guy got tazed from trespassing when a simple tackle would have been more than sufficient.
There is zero need to tackle the scrawny kid and break his arm on accident.There is zero need for the tazer.
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.
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.
Not death, not at the speeds and forces we're talking about here. Maybe painful...but a lot less painful than being electrocuted.
But the Taser causes the guards/police no pain, thus reducing overall potential for harm.Not death, not at the speeds and forces we're talking about here. Maybe painful...but a lot less painful than being electrocuted.