A teenaged fan ran out on the field in the middle of a Philadelphia Phillies game a couple of days ago. This happens many times, too many times, during the baseball season, and it is always followed by a merry chase, sometimes with fans laughing or cheering, featuring over-weight security staff or police trying to capture the fool, and occasionally a featuring a surprise, like a player intervening and decking the guy. There was a surprise this time, all right: when the fan wouldn’t stop after the pursuing officer told him to, he was shot with a taser. And some fans cheered at that, too.
A tsunami of criticism is now crashing over the security officer, condemning the tasering of 17-year-old Steve Consalvi, sometimes in terms more appropriate to discussing Abu Ghraib. If I were Consalvi’s father, I would counsel him to immediately issue a statement taking full responsibility for the incident and absolving the officer. The teen’s conduct was irresponsible and illegal, and for it to result in any adverse employment action against the security officer who tasered him would only compound the offense. This is especially true because the critics of the officer are dead wrong. They are in the grip of a dangerous, illogical but increasingly popular idea in our culture that submitting to legitimate police authority is one of those things that we can do or not do without consequences or stigma. The fan on the field is one of the mildest examples of disrespect for the law, but it is a perfectly good place to start getting our ethics unmuddled.
NBC Baseball writer/lawyer/ smart person Craig Calcaterra has written a thorough condemnation of the tasering, and if Craig can’t convince me, nobody can. For some reason, he (and other less rational critics) feel that the fan had to pose some tangible threat to life before a taser should be used. That is not true or reasonable. The fan was tased because an officer with legal authority told him to stop running, and he did not. So the officer used the taser to stop him.
Good.
The Philadelphia police, so far, at least, are standing behind their man, and I hope they continue to do so after President Obama tells the world, as he is prone to do, that he “acted stupidly.” The trend in America, which began, I believe, in the late Sixties, of shrugging off disrespect for law enforcement has now officially reached the point where it threatens society. As with most toxic trends, this one began for a good reason. In the old days, the police would just shoot a fleeing suspect, or sometimes even a fleeing non-suspect. If a cop said “Stop!” and you kept running, you were risking a bullet. Think of “It’s A Wonderful Life!”, with Ward Bond firing (into the crowd, yet!) at escaping George Bailey, who is only acting a little loony in “Pottersville” because he’s found out that he hasn’t been born yet.
Once society decided, correctly, that killing someone who might just have a phobia about people wearing badges was an excessive reaction, police were in a tough spot. They could try to chase down the suspect on foot, and this resulted in occasional heart attacks and other injuries to the police. They could try to stop the subject with a tackle or a collar, but it the police officer dislocated the individual’s shoulder or cracked his skull and it turned out that he was otherwise innocent, the department would be facing a lawsuit. Because it was now more effective than ever, running away from an arresting officer became increasingly popular, along with other Sixties customs, like referring to police as “Pigs,” regarding them as inherently racist and making them out to be Gestapo thugs in the media.
Running out onto baseball fields became popular around the same time, for different reasons. Games were starting to be televised more frequently, and some broadcasts captured on-field celebrations that included unprecedented participation by the fans. It’s hard to imagine today, but when the Boston Red Sox won their unlikely American League pennant with a final game victory in 1967, Fenway Park had no security measures to stop fans from running onto the field—which they did, nearly mauling the team in the process. The next season, a couple of fans ran onto the FenwayPark field during the very first game, and it quickly became a regular occurrence, there and elsewhere. Initially, local TV stations would broadcast the incursion in all its antic glory, showing security personal lunging and grabbing as the fan, usually bombed and often shirtless, circled the bases or ran broken field patterns to elude their usually older and less speedy pursuers. On nationally televised games, running onto the field could become a path to pop culture fame, like the alarmingly endowed stripper, “Morgana the Kissing Bandit,” who became a serial offender. Eventually (and rather slowly), sports directors realized that showing the idiots interrupting games only encouraged more of them. Teams, for their part, got tougher: where once a fan crossing into player territory would only be shown the gate, the new policies had them being arrested, fined and often spending a night in jail.
The point is, this is a crime. Running onto the field is trespass, and because it requires security personnel to jump barriers and chase after people, it creates conditions of risk. It slows a game, using up television time that could be used for income-making activities; it can lead to injuries to pitchers; it can alter the results of the contest. It inconveniences and irritates 30-50,000 spectators for the ego gratification of self-centered jerk: if there are 40,000 attendees of the game and the dash last 60 seconds, that’s about 27 days worth of wasted time collectively, and time is money—not to mention life. If the incidents get laughter or applause, or end up on YouTube (the presence of which now undermines the previously effective strategy of not showing field-dashes on the game broadcasts) they may inspire more incidents, meaning more risks to the players and personnel, more significant disruptions of games, more lost broadcast revenue, and more wasted time. Most of the indignant objections to the tasering of Stupid Steve begin and end with the argument, “He wasn’t doing any harm.” Of course he was doing harm. If there’s nothing disruptive or harmful about a spectator running around on the field, why stop him at all? Why not let everybody do it?
The fact is, nobody knows what a fan on the field might do. Fans have sometimes walked up to their favorite player and shaken his hand. Some have tried to burn flags. Some have stripped, adding indecent exposure on a grand scale to their offense. A couple of season ago, two drunk fans jumped out of the stands and beat up a first base coach. Calcaterra seems to think it’s relevant that the Philly incident, up to the tasering, could have had “Yakety Sax” (Craig has revealed himself to be a “Benny Hill” fan. Oh dear.) playing behind it. And if the fan had turned and stabbed the officer in the chest, he could say the same thing—up to the stabbing.
Let me ask all of the critics: if that happened, if a fan running on the field suddenly hurts someone badly…if he attacked the officer with a weapon, if he pulled the pin on a hand grenade after running into the dugout, then would you support tasering? If that happened, the security measures at the ballparks would be doubled and tripled, fans would be fenced off from the field entirely. The whole game experience would be altered forever, as baseball would engage in its own version of the “barn door” response, over-reacting to a tragedy that should have been prevented from occurring in the first place. I don’t want baseball fields to become cages. I’d rather prevent that tiny chance of a tragedy before it happens.
One way to help prevent it is to stop shrugging and making excuses for the guilty party when someone refuses to follow the legal commands of a police officer. People should not follow a police officer’s commands out of fear of being shot or tasered, of course; they should do it because it is respectful of the law, a duty of citizenship, and because if we endorse the principle that anyone can metaphorically spit in the eye of a police officer trying to enforce the law, then society becomes a more dangerous place. But an individual who runs out on a baseball field is obviously not respectful of the law, or fellow citizens either, and if he refuses an order to stop engaging in illegal conduct (to the strains of “Yakety Sax” or not), a security officer is well within the bounds of law, logic, fairness and reasonableness to stop him with force, if that is what he feels will stop him most quickly and safely.
Does he have to? No, of course not. The officer may decide to be merciful or kind or empathetic, because maybe he ran on a field once too long ago. But I would rather have the standard be to stop scofflaws in their tracks rather than to tolerate or humor them. I don’t think it is healthy for society to allow law enforcement officials to be made to look foolish when they are trying to do their jobs, or for a message to be sent to potential lawbreakers that it’s OK to defy the police. Discretion is dangerous for police these days. Imagine what we would have been hearing if Steve Consalvi happened to be black.
Craig takes issue with the Philadelphia Police Department’s statement that “the officer had acted within the department’s guidelines, which allow officers to use Tasers to arrest fleeing suspects.” Calcaterra counters, “…where was he fleeing? He was in a walled off stadium surrounded by police and security guards. He was almost certain to just stop and give up as soon as his beer-fueled bravado ran its course, which appeared to be within approximately 10 seconds of when he was tased. He wasn’t going anywhere.”
But it doesn’t matter that he couldn’t get away, Craig. Consalvi was fleeing. More important, by not stopping, he was defying a law enforcement official. Do I have any problem at all with establishing the rule that any citizen who refuses to obey a lawful command from a police officer and attempts to flee risks being tasered? No, I don’t.
I do have some problem with the Philadelphia security officer using his taser when a stadium runner had never been handled this way before. Some problem. It would have been better and fairer to announce in advance that this would be a possible response. On the other hand, Consalvi had no business being on the field, and certainly knew that. How sorry should we feel for him?
Part of the negative reaction to the tasering seems to be the result of another warped application of the Golden Rule: “Poor kid! I’d never want to be tasered!” I’m sure you’d never want to be locked up for burning down your neighbor’s house, either. I would handle the Golden Rule this way: if I run out onto a baseball field mid-game and refuse on officer’s order to stop, I should be tasered, and will expect to be….even if Steve Consalvi is the security officer.
The ethical analysis that best explains why the taser can be used is utilitarian. The threat of tasering will reduce the incidence of flight from police questioning, investigation and attempted arrest. The threat of tasering will discourage fans from disrupting athletic events by trespassing on the field of play. The threat of tasering will re-establish the endangered principle of following the lawful orders of police officers engaged in law enforcement and keeping the peace. Balance these legitimate objectives against momentary discomfort inflicted on irresponsible individuals who intentionally violate the law, defy authority and inconvenience thousands, and the ethical conclusion is obvious.
Catch them physically if possible, but if not, tase them.
_________________
Update: The parents of Steve Consalvi issued an apology to everyone, including the police, for their son’s conduct. There is now a $2,500 fine for running out on the field; so much for all the arguments that it is harmless. The owners of the field don’t think so. Police will no longer enforce the ban, so further tasering won’t be happening; neither will defiance and humiliation of law enforcement officials. Steve is fine; nobody’s getting sued, and the officer is not going to lose his job. All in all, a very good result indeed. Let’s hope the other clubs were paying attention.
Ethics Alarms 
Jack,
I might tend to agree except that, to me, police are responsible for being the immovable object against an unstoppable force. In other words, the power they employ should be in equal response to the threat being posed. Mr. Consalvi was criminal and reckless, sure, but he was more of a threat to himself than anyone else.
Unfortunately, I worry that there’s a growing trend in this country for police to preemptively strike rather than rationally evaluate situations. It’s easier to tase first and deal with the fallout later than respond in more appropriate fashion in the first place. People who make a nuisance of themselves by interrupting events should be dealt with, but is tasering the most effective way of going about it? It will do little in the way of deterrence and the punishment didn’t really fit the crime. Finally, and perhaps this sounds paranoid, but I don’t like the idea of law enforcement officers becoming too comfortable drawing their weapons before exhausting less extreme alternative. After all, police in most of Britain don’t even carry guns and their crime rate is no worse than ours.
Why does the ante always need to be upped instead of lowered?
-Neil
The response of the guard was not proportional to the risk. In the range of criminal activity this kids acts were at the very lowest point of the scale. The guard just couldn’t be bothered chasing the kid, and the stadium management couldn’t be bothered employing sufficient security staff and barriers to protect the pitch or the players. So the use of the weapon was casual, excessive and avoidable.
This is not a safe weapon. Tasers are responsible for many deaths every year. The “medical” literature is unequivocal. In certain individuals tasers can precipitate sudden death events. Its use here, where other security measures might have stopped the kid from getting on the pitch in the first place, and where he obviously wasn’t posing a real objective risk to players, should be dealt with in criminal law.
Rob, nobody dies from tasers when they are young, healthy enough to run around the field, and there are no restraints involved. I’ve read the data. It is a safe device under these circumstances. “Considering the risk involved”: which risk? The risk of trespass? This is an ongoing crime. Risk of actual injury? To whom? What if the officer sees a bulge under his shirt? What if the kid says something threatening to him? How does the officer know what the risk is? And risk isn’t the standard! The standard is whether there’s a less severe way to stop someone fleeing arrest in a reasonable amount of time, and it’s the officer’s call. Why should someone doing such a stupid, wasteful, selfish, potentially dangerous thing be given such solicitude? If he ran up to a player and the player cold-cocked him (that has killed people too) would you say the player used excessive force? A punch in the face by an athlete is a lot more injurious than being tased.
The kid’s family has apologized to the team AND the police, the Phillies have increased the fine to 2500 bucks, and the officer, whom the players have generally praised, is not losing his lob, as Craig rashly presumed. All of which is consistent with my analysis. The guard’s response was appropriate for a subject avoiding arrest.
Up front, I tend to agree that tasing was an appropriate response in this situation. My reason for writing is to clarify an important distinction that I think each of us is making personally but not projecting as part of our arguments: what we define as constituting punishment.
To jump–perhaps unfairly–on part of Neil’s otherwise astute commentary, I don’t consider this tasing to have been punishment (“It will do little in the way of deterrence and the punishment didn’t really fit the crime”). I consider the tasing to have been an officer’s tool of apprehension/arrest. Tasing was the best tool that particular officer thought he had given the circumstances.
There’s no doubt that tasing is unpleasant. I would not want to experience it. In this situation, however, the tasing was not the punishment. Tasing was a circumstance of the arrest. Consalvi’s punishment should–and hopefully will–come later in some form of fine or community service AND in harsh judgment from the court of public opinion.
– Jim
Excellent, Jim. I did not address this because I don’t consider the tasing “punishment,” though the fact of the tasing will necessarily have deterrent value, like punishment. Similarly, to suggest that the subject “deserved” to be tased, true as it might be, also muddles the punishment distinction. The tasing was measure used to stop the crime in progress and apprehend the lawbreaker, not his punishment for breaking the law. Thanks.
To stop the crime in progress? Are you nuts? The kid was running around the field waving a towel or t-shirt or some such. Sure he needs to be punished but he was going to get caught without having to resort to tazing him, just like the thousands of idiots before him who have tried such a stunt and have been ably apprehended by law enforcement — I mean, how hard is it really to catch a kid running around in an area that was already walled off? Would you have tazed the Kissing Bandit because she dared encroach the field of play?
The idea that this is a reasonable response is simply ludicrous.
Your fervor doesn’t bolster your logic, which is flawed. 1) It is a crime in progress. Do you not understand that? He is forbidden from running around on the field by the field’s owners. If you crawl in through my window and run around in my house just for fun, it is also a crime. 2) The fact that other idiots have done it is meaningless. Some of those idiots attacked team members on the field. Some of them disrupted the game for five minutes or more. Don’t argue to me that it’s “harmless”: I explained why it wasn’t harmless, and why there was a risk it could be harmful. You deal with those issues in your rebuttal, or its no rebuttal. 3) What do you mean how hard is it? One fat guy chasing one young fool on a huge field? He can run forever. So you need to have multiple security officers so he can be surrounded, and you have to pay them, and you have to pay for their injuries if they get hurt trying to tackle the guy. Why should the team have to do all this to save a trespassing jerk from the discomfort of being tasered only if he refuses a direct command to stop? What right does a class of lawbreaking spectators have to force a team to accept this expense? Your priorities and sympathies are out of whack. 3) If Morgana was ordered to stop, refused, and couldn’t be stopped any other way—sure, tase her. It’s a silly hypothetical, because, if you ever saw Morgana try to run, carrying as she was two artificially-enhanced mammaries the size of beach balls and the weight of bowling balls, you would know that I could have caught her despite my artificial hip. Morgana was also a rarity: everyone knew what she was going to do, and it wasn’t beating up anyone. 4) The taser isn’t “punishment.” It is a legitimate method to stop a fleeing criminal who has defied a lawful order. If you can’t refute any of the last 12 words, then you can’t say it’s unreasonable.
You think it’s ludicrous? Swell. But you haven’t presented any valid argument that supports that opinion.
Funny, I’d expect the cops to have to justify this rather than us find its fault. Anyhow, to your point that its a crime. So is a 5 year old stealing a lollipop or a guy dropping a bubblegum wrapper. Neither implies a reasonable need to stop the “crime in progress” through the use of a tazer as if there was actually some greater threat involved, which is pure boogeyman.
The fact that idiots have done it is meaningless neither to the level of threat imposed nor to whether it required immediate cessation. Past history shows pretty darn clearly that unless someone comes right out and starts wailing on a target, they are a “joyrider” and, in either regard, will be caught 100% of the time without running 300,000 volts through the individual.
Your off target point of one fat guy chasing a kid is plainly wrong if you either (a) look at the actual video and (b) have ever been to a baseball stadium. I’m guessing you knew that, though.
The key question is this: Why was this case so unique that it required a tazer when it never otherwise does? Legitimacy goes beyond the fact that the kid was running. It’s about the need to halt it in the manner he did.
What makes it even more disturbing is the context of just how bad the Philly police department is in the breadth of bad things it does. But a quick perusal of TheAgitator will show you is Philly Police Acting Badly.
Police need more reason to think clearly before acting. Not less.
Pingback: Jack Marshall is 0-2 with Two Ks | Popehat
Refraining, as I often do, from commenting on the ethical issues, I have to observe that the “old days” must mean days before 1985, when the Supreme Court held in Tennessee vs. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), that police cannot not shoot (with a gun) a fleeing anybody unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.
Although the taser was invented in 1974, its original version used gunpowder and it was legally classified as a Type II firearm in 1976. The gunpowder-less taser didn’t hit the streets until 1993-94.
I actually think “the old days” go farther back than that, at least as a matter of common police practice. The Supreme Court decision certainly follows: shooting is deadly force, and should be linked to risk of death or injury. Despite the arguments of Amnesty International, a taser is not deadly force, even though, under certain conditions, it can kill somebody. But then, so can peanut butter.
Charles, in my own opinion, is intentionally attempting to be thick and unfair. It’s hard to overlook the fact that his title (“Jack Marshall is 0-2 with Two Ks”) is unfair because he’s not really keeping count, only counting the articles for which he disagrees. Had he agreed with this article, his count would be 0-1, not 1-1.
Second, he missed the point. Went right over his head.
Unfortunately, because Marshall lacks any sense of proportion or decency, he doesn’t mind that the lesson is delivered via a disabling jolt of electricity. In fact, Marshall goes on to give carte blanche to any cop to taser any fleeing suspect, regardless of whether the suspect proposes any risk to anyone.
Tasers are non-lethal alternatives to aid and assist an officer to subdue, detain, and arrest suspects and criminals. Here’s an example Charles: A purse snatcher snags a bag from a woman in the mall, the cop chases him out into the parking lot but realizes he might not catch him. Does he A) let the man escape (he’s not proposing any risk to anyone) or B) attempt to apprehend him by tasing him?
Your standard of whether the suspect proposes risk is pretty high, and at that level, I’d let him use a real gun, even silver bullets just in case it’s a werewolf.
Charles goes on:
Colasvi was running around like an idiot, waving a towel and dodging for the sake of dodging. He never ran at a player, never tried to destroy property, never indicated that he was anything more than a goof. He posed no threat to anyone; the players stood around laughing at the spectacle, aware that they weren’t at risk. At no point does Marshall consider the ethics of police behavior and their need to use force proportionate to the task at hand.
Just because Charles is “astute” enough to notice the runner had no intention of hurting anyone (because he was able to watch the video over and over in slow motion) doesn’t mean that there aren’t unintended consequences. Besides the monetary loss and harm to the Phillies ball club (business reasons) what if the chase went on so long as to motivate other fans to charge the field? Or more likely, what if the kid eventually ran close enough to a player that thought he might need to scurry out of the way and in the process twists his ankle? Now we are talking about a multi-million dollar player sitting on the bench because of some kid. You’d probably tase the purse snatcher for $50, but not a kid for endangering the safety of million dollar players?
I’d refute more of his article, but those were the only two points he attempted to make that weren’t misdirected personal assaults on Jack Marshall.
I’m only counting the articles I’ve read, Tim. You aren’t making any more sense here than you did over at Popehat, so I’m going to keep the conversation in one place.
I’ll say this for your purse-snatcher example, though: it is horrible. In one case you have to invent speculative harms; in the other, the spoils of the crime are in the criminal’s hands. Robbery and trespass are not equivalent crimes.
Some people commit crimes to be recognized and gain infamy. I think this kid had the spoils of his crime.
Considering all the articles of yours that I’ve read Charles, you’re 0-1.
Well, Charles, I actually contacted a Chief of Police of a large jurisdiction, who is about as much of a paragon of ethics in the field as one could imagine. Here, in part, is his take:
“The use of a taser (we call them conducted energy devices or CEDs because Taser is actually a brand name…like Kleenex) is governed by a Department’s “use of force” policy. In general, most police dept’s have a policy that states that you can only use the minimum amount of force necessary to take someone into custody (or stop them from committing a crime.) One has to start with the minimum amount of force and work your way up the continuum. We start with verbal commands, then physically guiding someone (hand on their arm, pushing in the direction you want someone to go), then using your own hands to stop someone (a more physical controlling.) After that you go to pepper spray, taser, baton, and finish with deadly force (firearm.)
Taser use MUST be viewed in the context of – was that force necessary to take the subject into custody and stop the crime from continuing. As you point out…he is trespassing. Could the Officers have taken him into custody using less force? Typically, tackling the guy and gaining control of him with your hands would be considered reasonable force. I don’t think you would get much argument there.
If the Officers felt that they could not catch this guy, and felt that the potential threat he posed was increasing…then the use of the taser would have also, in my view, have been reasonable force. What if the guy had made threatening statements when he jumped onto the field? What if they could see a bulge under his shirt? What if he kept putting his hands in his pocket? All of this would have added to the urgency to take this guy into custody.
BUT, if the Officers used the taser to “teach him a lesson” or to send a message to others thinking about running onto the field, then it was unwarranted. They should have gotten sufficient personnel on the field, and surrounded the guy and taken him down and handcuffed him. The deterrent comes from vigorously prosecuting the jerk, and banning him from the ball park for life (or at least a year if that is all the law will allow.)
A couple of reactions to your piece… People don’t care if law enforcement is made to look foolish (most people anyway.) Most people love the entertainment. They don’t think about the injuries to the Officers, the embarrassment, the ridicule that we take on a regular basis. It feels personal when you are a cop, even though most folks don’t mean it that way. no one in the crowd seems to take it seriously…a “what’s the harm attitude.”
I am a “rules” guy….when I see people break them so they can be the center of attention, it annoys me to no end. I’d love to taser the guy! But you can’t unless you have no other alternative. And chasing him for 30 more seconds might just be warranted. It is a judgment call. In this case, if the Officer erred, he only erred a little. He may have used a little more force than needed, but not much. A minor violation at worse. And if the cop is smart, he will be able to articulate the reason he believed it was necessary. Hopefully he can do so while telling the truth.
A couple other thoughts…what if the kid was black? Great observation. Wouldn’t that have change the whole discussion on the issue! What if the Officer had been white and the kid black….another huge issue.
What if the next time a fan jumped onto the field, they let a K-9 dog chase him down? That is what we do in many fleeing criminal scenarios. The bad guy is told to stop, he doesn’t, he is warned that the dog will be released, he keeps running and the dog usually catches the guy in 10 seconds or less. Our dogs are taught to bite and hold. If you fight or try to get away, they will keep biting you. If you take your bite and stop, they will sit next to you and wait for you to move again. I recommend not moving. They will release you upon command of the K-9 handler. Now that really wouldn’t work on a baseball field, because the dog could go after someone innocent. But what if?
The taser should not be used as a threat to gain compliance. If you run you will be tasered? No…if you run and fight me, you will be tasered. If you resist arrest, you will be tasered. I tell my folks, you should only use a taser on someone if you would be justified in striking them with your baton (billy club for your old timers.) If you wouldn’t hit them with your stick, you shouldn’t taser them. Tasers are for people who are fighting you and are a threat to do harm. If this idiot in Philly could be considered a threat, then tase him. If not, then don’t.
Tasers have reduced prisoner injuries dramatically. Used to be, that you would take someone who fought you to the hospital to get 20 stitches in their head. Now, with a taser, no injury and no fight.
I could go on, but this is probably enough. I’m OK with the guy being tased, but I would have preferred a tackle and a couple guys jumping on to control him. That does increase the risk of injury (to the good guys and the bad guy.) That is why, I can justify the taser use as being reasonable and not excessive.”
I think this smart and reasonable, and certainly more moderate than my position. The fact is, the tasing had a good effect—it ended up making the ball club focus on a real deterrent–a whopping fine—and removed the police from enforcement, which is fine with me.
But the argument that the fan is per se harmless and should be pampered as if he is an innocent, fun-loving child is ridiculous.
Dude, you’re off your ethics rocker! The punishment should match the crime. Just goofing off does not merit shock treatment. It may be illegal, but so is speeding. Are you going to be ok with police ramming speeding cars, next?
Dude, please read the article with some comprehension before making a comment like this. 1) It’s not punishment; nobody says its punishment. 2) It isn’t that it may be illegal:it IS illegal. 3) Cars attempting to elude the police are chased down, often with loss of life or injury to innocent bystanders. Would I approve of tasering a driver engaged in such an attempt to flee, if it was possible and stopped the car? Of course. Your analogy makes no sense at all, Dan: if the speeder is stopped, there’s no need to tase the driver. If the speeder is fleeing, you can’t tase the driver.
Come again; think your argument through next time, please.
I think there are instances when, metaphorically speaking, cars get tasered. The equivalent would be with cops shooting out the tires, or setting a row of spikes to deflate the tires. There are dangers in these actions as well, just as in tasering an individual.
The latest independent research shows that in 1000 cases of real life tasering, 3 individuals had to be admitted to the hospital and another 2 died from causes unrelated to the taser.
The most anyone has said about how to improve this situation is to have more guards to corral the offender. I don’t see why that’s necessary when 1 fat cop with a taser resolved this fiasco with no deaths and little injury. Additionally, the kid was apprehended without any injury to the security guards or the cop that arrested him. He was warned that he would be tased, as he ran around, he saw the cop holding the taser, and what did he do? He failed to follow commands to end the fiasco peacefully and the cop made good on his use of force.
Why should the cop (who doesn’t know if this kid is hopped up on some kind of drug) allow himself to get a broken nose because of flailing arms and feet? He shouldn’t.
The cop gave chase, gave commands and tried to resolve everything peacefully. The cop gave an ultimatum and the kid did not respect the cop’s position. The taser was a “consequence” not a penalty. The kid new the consequence and he accepted it. Now the blog-o-sphere needs to accept it too.
Tim…I think this is all manifestly obvious. Charles is just ticked off that he was never able to read the whole April Fool’s thread before I took part of it down, so he could “judge” whether my apology was sufficient by his lights. If anybody but me wrote the taser opinion, he might have agreed with it. Thus does bias, irrational passion and obsession make fools of us all.
Popehat’s a good and entertaining site, when it isn’t confusing ethical principles. Charles isn’t the only one who writes there.
We had a similar situation when I was Sheriff. One of my deputies had to subdue a disorderly spectator at a Summerville High School football game. Summerville has the winningest football coach in the history of the game (Coach John McKissick) so this was no small event. Unfortunately, the deputy did not have a Taser. All she had was pepper spray. Which she used. And the overspray affected a bunch of innocent fans…!
We had such a public backlash from this that I subjected myself to the pepperspray training (which includes getting a full shot in the face so we will understand the effects) just to show its not that bad. The local media was there to capture the event as I dunked my head in a bucket of ice water and had streams of mucus flowing out of my nose…! The price we sometimes have to pay…
I haven’t looked at the details of this case. But if the officer was justified in subduing the suspect (that is he had probable cause for the arrest, or at least reasonable suspicion for the detention), he was in his rights to use reasonable force under the circumstances.
The Taser has proven itself as a painful, yet humane, way of subduing resisting or fleeing suspects. There is always a degree of risk when force is utilized. I suppose the suspect could have had some strange reaction to the Taser, or could have even been injured, or even killed, from the ensuing fall when his nervous system was short-circuited. But compared to what could have happened had the officer tackled the suspect or chased him through the crowd or used some other type of force that could have injured him, the suspect, or bystanders, the Taser may have been an appropriate choice.
I, too, am concerned about officers being too “trigger-happy” with the Taser. It is not a panacea that can be used in any circumstance. And shouldn’t replace a professional officer’s skills of persuasion or tactical communication. But it is a valid tool that helps bridge the gap between empty-handed techniques and deadly force.
When you consider all of the factors, the proper use of Tasers results in less injury to suspects, officers, and innocent bystanders. However, if my deputy had used a Taser instead of pepperspray, I’m not so sure I would have been as willing to get Tased on TV…!
Sheriff Ray
http://www.PoliceDynamicsMedia.com
Thanks for the insight, Ray. Hmmm…pepper spray or taser. Have you been tasered too? Which was “better”?
I didn’t like the idea of being Tasered. Something about those “barbs and all that twitching” that you mentioned in the other post didn’t appeal to me. I always questioned the policy of forcing the officer to submit to the Taser or to the pepperspray in order to be certified. I liked to argue that I didn’t have to get shot to qualify with my firearm!
Tasering might be more painful in the short run. But after the current stops (after about 5 secs, I think) you return to normal quite quickly. Not so with the pepperspray. It tends to hang around for quite a while and is difficult to get off of your skin, out of your eyes, and out of your hair. In your shower the next day, you get hit all over again!
Plus the pepperspray affects everyone in the vicinity: bystanders and other officers. And it gets all in your patrol car. The Taser is much more specific in its targets. But you have to remember that it does shoot metal barbs. If they hit the suspect in the eye or in the groin, or an innocent bystander, by mistake, that would not be good at all.
And you have to be careful of those wires. One of my deputies got tangled up in them while another deputy was Tasering a suspect and he got the shock too!
Sheriff Ray
http://www.PoliceDynamicsMedia.com
BTW: Keep an eye on my blog. I’m travelling to the desert of Jordan tomorrow, followed by Jerusalem and Egypt. I hope to post some training videos from there…