Tasering at Phillies Game--Fair or Extreme?

I would guess that the peak level of pain would be higher in tasing, while the pepper spray would suck because of the length of time it would cause your throat and eyes to burn.

One time, the cop at my high school was getting attacked by a dog, so he attempted to use pepper spray on the dog. As he attempted to spray the dog, a big gust of wind came out of no where and blew the spray right back in his eyes. Pretty damn funny to watch.

 

I've been tear gassed with the powder form that sticks on your clothes.

I would happily take tasing or pepper spray over that stuff.

 

There have been 20 related deaths in Canada attributed to tasering over the last number of years. I don't think there have been any pepper spray or mace related deaths.

 

They should simply have used the old Yankee Stadium method ... tackle the guy, bring him downstairs to the "interrogation" room and then have to "use necessary force" when he tries to escape.

 

Taze him. Why should a cop risk getting hurt even if five of them tackle the guy?

Frankly, I'd like to see the players grab some bats and just beat the living hell out of the guy.

 

A very good friend of mine is a Master Taser Instructor, and yes - as part of the certification process he had to take a "Ride For Five" - which means being on the receiving end of a five-second taser blast. On the video, he drops to his knees immediately and spends about 4.5 seconds convulsing and making a series of involuntary, gutteral, nauseating noises. I wouldn't wish it on anybody.

That said, tase the fuckers who run on the field. 98% of them may be harmless, but Monica Seles and Tom Gamboa will tell you some are dangerous pricks.

 

The problem with situations like this is that everyone wants to apply an absolute rule.

"You run on the field, you get tasered."

"Most people who run on the field are harmless."

Why can't we just take things on a situation-by-situation basis? I would bet that 90 percent of the security guys at ballparks and the cops who work at ballparks could tell you within five seconds if a guy is a threat or if he's just some harmless nut running around waving a towel.

You watch the video, it's pretty obvious this kid was the latter. Why not treat it that way?

It annoys me when people who should know better because of their experience use bullshit absolutes to justify inappropriate actions.

There's no doubt in my mind that deep down that security guy knew this kid was no real threat. But he wanted to tase him for some reason -- mainly because the one-percent that once attacked a coach gives him some wiggle room to do so.

 

Take them down.

 

Few quick questions:

1. Are Tasers "one size fits all," or are there certain, lower-power models for close quarters or something like that?

2. We were debating this in the newsroom today - what is AP Style for this - Tased? Tazed? Tasered?, etc.

3. Not a question but a statement - one of the best fantasy team names I've ever seen (for hockey): Don't Toews Me, Bro!

My opinion - it shouldn't be automatic, that is, the manual takedown should always be the first option, but if you're dumb enough to run onto the field, you should be aware that the security people in question have that tool in their arsenal.

 

Second on the pic.

That is fantastic.

 

No one would have been able to Taser the guys who got Gamboa and Seles until after the deed was done.

 

True, perhaps (although I thought the Ligues entered by the dugout, where there's no shortage of cops). But my point was that some people who run on the field pose a genuine threat.