This is a bbs and I am asking you a logical follow up to your statement. It sounds like to me that you would be fine with police doing essentially whatever they wanted to someone they apprehended. I take it then that you don't place much value on the Constitution. I thank cops and no they have a very difficult job. I know this as a fact since I teach Judo with an ex-cop and have helped train cops.
Oops. Yeah, sorry. No one is defending the kid. LOL @ everyone saying the kid shouldn't have been "tased." :grin:
He had just ran past all of them twice, in very limited space, and room to run around the remainder of the field. They would have caught him eventually, but this was quicker, and not very dangerous.
Your diagram shows someone firing from a set and stable position at a non-moving target. I can tell you firing anything while you are running full speed at a moving target your accuracy is going to seriously decline. Especially in the case of where you are huffing and puffing. Also note in the video the proximity of the other security to the kid. I've never fired a taser but I have fired handguns and have seen demonstrations of tasers. I can tell you with a fair amount of certainty, even without firing a taser, that firing while running at a moving target isn't going to be that accurate.
Here's something to chew on. Would the cop have used a taser had he been able to catch the kid? (Hint: No) So... why did he elect to use the taser? (Hint: Not because he felt it was safer than tackling him, and not because the kid was a threat/dangerous... so guess what that leaves as his justification...)
That he couldn't catch him. Cops will now be required to be sprint champions, so that they can never be outrun by a fleeing suspect.
I run marathons and I'm sure I would have trouble catching a wiry seventeen year old kid in a huge open space. I'd like to see of some of you try.
Cops are supposed to be very physically fit. Your hyperbole is noted, but they are supposed to (for the average department) be able to hold down about an 11 mph sprint for over a minute. In case you don't know, that's pretty damned fast. Faster than this kid was running, anywho.
So he could catch the kid.... I don't understand this rational that everyone should have assumed that the kid wasn't going to do anything wrong. As has been pointed out already, ask Bill Spiers about assuming something like that. And since when was it a requirement that cops vs. criminals is supposed to be a fair fight?
Huffing and puffing? We don't know that and it's silly to assume anything about the officer other than he appears to be a bit overweight. And the proximity to the kid also appears to be in the 10-15 foot range. The problem is you are trying to make it seem as if these tasers are incredibly dangerous and erratic tools. I don't buy that. The officer was clearly trained to use it in this type of situation, otherwise, WHY WOULD THEY GIVE OFFICERS TASERS AT PUBLIC EVENTS?? I just don't understand all of the criticism. The officer had every right to use the taser. The kid wasn't lethally hurt. How can anyone not understand that the taser is a useful, non-lethal tool? It's because the taser is still relatively new and everyone assumes any use of a taser is dangerous ever since some kid wouldn't shut up screaming "Don't tase me bro!." That's absurd thinking.
What about that video leads you to believe the kid had any intent to do something harmful/violent? Please, tell me. I'm amazed that people feel this way. I guess everyone has a very active imagination or is just scared *****less by the thought of anyone doing anything remotely unlawful/out of the ordinary. We're so reactionary, and we assume the worst in virtually every situation. It's baffling.
The kid wasn't moving very fast I'd agree. And cops should have to continually meet certain physical standards if they are going to be in situations that require a lot of running. Of course that greatly lowers the number of qualified officers. The point is that there's no guarantee a physically fit person would have been able to end this easily. This was what appears to be a young, in shape teenager. Thats a hard thing to catch. In this particular incident, the cop felt it was his only reasonably safe way to bring a quick end to this. And although the kid does not appear dangerous, that doesn't mean he couldn't have been. This thread really boils down to one question: Do you thing Tasers are safe? Ones arguing against the officer probably feel no, while people like me believe they are.
to avoid being repetitive...i agree with juicystream And it's getting annoying to read all the comments about the security guy being out of shape. He's doing a job he was hired to do. If there were plenty more people who were just as qualified and in better shape, maybe he wouldn't hold the job. Or maybe they're doing a poor job of testing their employees. But from the security guy's point of view, he had a job to do. He did it. If he kept running until he was out of breath and didn't catch the guy for 10 minutes until some backup came, you think they (or we) would say "No big deal man--get some exercise and you'll get him next time" ? He took care of the situation and did so safely and quickly.
1) He's not a "security guy". He's a police officer, of the state. He's not private. He was in uniform, he had a pistol and handcuffs on him. 2) He may have been "doing his job", but he certainly wasn't "doing his job" well.
I completely agree with this.....but that's totally different than the question I asked. "Appropriate and not excessive" I get. There are people here who seem pissed off that the guy couldn't catch the kid without a taser. As if there's some sort of code that says cops should never be allowed to use anything that gives them an unfair advantage over the suspect. I guess cops shouldn't be allowed to use a helicopter to track down a suspect on the run because, after all, the suspect doesn't have a helicopter. That's not fair.
Fairness has nothing to do with this, it's about appropriateness. For example, you don't use a gun to bring the kid down, not because "it's unfair since the kid doesn't have one", but because it is inappropriate/excessive given the circumstances. You don't use a cruise missle to light a cigarette.
