Let me start out by acknowledging a couple of things:
1. That kid at the Phillies game had no business whatsoever being on the field last night. He should be arrested and charged to the fullest extent the law allows.
2. Fans on the field represent a threat to the athletes. I remember the Monica Seles incident. I remember Tom Gamboa being attacked in Chicago. That’s scary stuff and no one should abide threats to the players, coaches or officiants at a sporting event.
That said, I do not agree that the guy at the Phillies game should have been subdued with a Taser. It was too much force, in my view, and was disproportionate to the threat presented.
And make no mistake: a Taser is designed to be use to combat threats, not merely to help subdue drunks or trespassers. Indeed, the very company who makes the Taser calls it a product that “protects life.” One that is designed to “incapacitate dangerous, combative, or
high-risk subjects who pose a risk to law enforcement/correctional
officers, innocent citizens, or themselves.”
Watch the video of the incident here. Can anyone point to a moment where the kid threatened or even came near anyone on the field? Any point where he appeared to be “dangerous,” or “combative?” Any point where he appeared to “pose a risk to law enforcement officers?” If you can identify it please let me know, because to me it looks like the whole scene was calling far louder for an overdub of “Yakety Sax” than the use of high voltage force. In the grand scheme of things, this kid represented a threat somewhere below that of your average streaker and somewhere above Morgana the Kissing Bandit.
The most common response I’ve heard to this argument today is “but Craig, we don’t know what the kid could have done! There was so much uncertainty!” My response to that: every single encounter between law enforcement and the public brings uncertainty. Ask a cop and he’ll tell you: even the most mundane traffic stop has the potential to turn dangerous quickly. That’s just a fact of life when you’re dealing with people who do wrong, or who are at least suspected of such.
But we don’t allow police officers to use force at every traffic stop or whenever they encounter a drunk or a trespasser. Why? Because such force is not necessary to accomplish the goals of police work. Force — and the the use of a Taser is definitely force — is a last resort, only to be used in a manner commensurate with the threat presented and to overcome the obstacles which prevent the accomplishment of the officer’s goal. This is the law. It also happens to be a pretty good idea.
Late this morning the Philadelphia police issued a statement standing behind the police officer who used the taser. The rationale was that “the officer had acted within the department’s guidelines, which allow
officers to use Tasers to arrest fleeing suspects.” To which I respond: 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.
I know that people worry about the safety of players. I do too. I also worry, however, about what happens when the government uses its most serious power: the power to exert force over citizens. There are over 2000 baseball games a year. In any given year there
are very, very few incidents of fans running on the field. Of those, incidents in which the fans get anywhere near a player before being subdued are even rarer. If more attention were paid to in-stadium security, the incidents would be even rarer than that.
Now think about what we risk when we tell police officers that it’s
perfectly acceptable to use force without heed to the actual threat — as opposed to potential threat — posed by the suspect. Because make no mistake, that’s what anyone who uses the “but we have no idea what could have happened” argument to support the police officer is really saying. Personally I find that unsettling.
Based on what their web site says, I think the folks who make Tasers would find that unsettling too.
-
- Matt - May 4, 2010 at 1:34 PM
-
I work for a pro sports team (and have worked in sports my whole life), and have seen this a few times.
the minute a fan steps on the field, they deserve whats coming to them. there is no telling what their intention is, EVER.
whether it’s a players cleat catching them in the gut (or the face), or a taser to the back. the minute you step on that field, you deserve exactly what you get.
fans need to stay the hell off the field.
-
- OldNo7 - May 4, 2010 at 1:34 PM
-
This analysis is electrifying.
“is Carmelo”
-
- frankie d - May 4, 2010 at 1:37 PM
-
I don’t agree with this article. I think that guy deserves to get tasered for the reasons listed in comment number 1. Also, this could be a deterrent for future trespassers. Run onto the field, and you get tasered! Who will want to be subjected to that… only the truly crazy ones.
-
- noone - May 4, 2010 at 1:39 PM
-
This is a MASSIVE improvement on your first post, which not-so-subtly implied that the officer was ready to put the kid to death because he was embarrassed the kid got away from him. It would still be nice if you found some way to acknowledge in this post that he actually might not be an inhuman monster.
-
- John - May 4, 2010 at 1:40 PM
-
I work for a pro sports team (and have worked in sports my whole life)
Gee, Matt…I guess you’re an expert.
If I said I worked in law enforcement for over 30 years and felt this officer acted unprofessionally, would you believe me?
-
- Thomas home - May 4, 2010 at 1:40 PM
-
Craig do you miss the lawyering already?
-
- Old Gator - May 4, 2010 at 1:42 PM
-
Quick note moved up from the previous brouhaha on this subject: today is the 40th Anniversary of the Kent State murders. Not an inappropriate time to be discussing the excessive use of force, is it?
-
- OldNo7 - May 4, 2010 at 1:44 PM
-
You know would have been a more effective deterrent? Shooting him with live ammunition and killing him. That would really show future hooligans that security means business.
As usual, when Craig tries to make a somewhat nuanced point about a controversial subject, all the yahoos beat their chests and make blanket black and white statements. Craig never said this kid doesn’t deserve a consequence. He said that in this case the Taser was a massive overreaction to the potential threat. This was a kid who was goofing off. Kids do that. Cops don’t–and shouldn’t–use force at the level of a Taser on a kid who’s goofing off.
-
- Reader - May 4, 2010 at 1:45 PM
-
>>I work for a pro sports team (and have worked in sports my whole life)
-
- Jonny5 - May 4, 2010 at 1:46 PM
-
Although I feel the officer did have “reason” to taser (resisting arrest) I also feel he shouldn’t have done it. That kid was only screwing around. And Craig, every time you get pulled over in Philly, try running and you’ll get zapped. This is the training the police get so it’s tough to draw a line here. Honestly I think the cops feel it’s fun to taser people.
-
- TKS - May 4, 2010 at 1:47 PM
-
If tasing one of these idiots prevents a repeat of the Tom Gamboa incident, I’m all for it. That seemed like alcohol-fueled bravado at first also. I went to professional wrestling school a few years ago. They taught us that if some idiot jumped the rail and got in the ring, that we were totally justified in kicking the sh!t out of them. Maybe there are very, very few of these incidents every year because the idiots who might do it are afrai of getting the sh!t kicked out of them. In that case, threat as a deterrant isn’t a bad thing.
-
- Andy - May 4, 2010 at 1:49 PM
-
It’s amazing to me how many people don’t even try to argue that the risks justified the officer’s response. Matt’s comment–which seems to be typical–is just that the kid got what he “deserved.” I’d call it retributionist, but even retribution carries with it some idea of proportionality, whereas Matt seems content to say that if you break the rule then anything is fair game. It’s painfully obvious how many people’s take on this incident is motivated more by their personal annoyance at the the kid (or what he represents) than any attempt at rational justification.
-
- Rayo - May 4, 2010 at 1:50 PM
-
Anyone who steps onto the playing field, irrespective of appearance, poses a potential threat to the players, to other fans, and to employees of the facility. The fact that they exhibit this lack of judgement and defiance of the law makes their stability questionable. I’d rather err on the side of caution than regret an even more unfortunate outcome.
-
- Johnny Doe - May 4, 2010 at 1:50 PM
-
You are an idiot and should be tazed just like that moron. Anything that cop would have done would have idiots like you monday morning quarterbacking. If he tackled him it would have been too much forced, if he hit him with a baton it would have been too much force. I say we just get rid of all Police Dept’s and let everyone fend for themselves like back in the day, and then watch as the losers of this world cry for help.
-
- Funzo - May 4, 2010 at 1:50 PM
-
Here’s the test: what if, as is possible with those things, the taser had done some permanent damage to the kid? Could you still justify the use of force, given the available evidence?
If so, I really hope you’re not a cop.
-
- Drew - May 4, 2010 at 1:50 PM
-
i suppose get what they deserve could mean anything to you. appropriate force is all that is required, not necessarily a life threatening tazer.
-
- Craig Calcaterra - May 4, 2010 at 1:52 PM
-
So we should tase Morgana the Kissing Bandit and streakers too?
-
- nohalohere - May 4, 2010 at 1:56 PM
-
Okay, so let me ask this. Should a player of any sport be tased when they go up into the stands, as this has happened before? I agree the fan had no business being out on the field (that’s a given), but this could have been handled quite differently, for instance, as it has in the past and no one has ever had to be tasered.
-
- BCTF - May 4, 2010 at 1:56 PM
-
Craig,
Why do you defend stupid people and hate the people who are in charge of protecting us from the stupid people?
-
- NasTN8 - May 4, 2010 at 1:56 PM
-
oh my god, why are people acting like he got beaten with a club?? he was tasered, it’s NON-LETHAL, effective, and you recover from it VERY quickly. like it was said in ‘fight club’, this world is becoming a pussy-whipped version of itself. why so much sympathy for criminals? it’s disgusting!! if you break the law, you deserve what you get.
-
- Aaron - May 4, 2010 at 1:56 PM
-
“Anything that cop would have done would have idiots like you monday morning quarterbacking. If he tackled him it would have been too much forced, if he hit him with a baton it would have been too much force.”
No. As Craig points out, we have many documented cases in which ordinary taser use has killed someone–enough to demand that certain standards of risk be met when tasers are used. By contrast, how many cases do you know of in which being simply tackled by an officer caused death?
-
- LAHALVY - May 4, 2010 at 1:57 PM
-
As a former police officer the tasering of the young man is acceptable. You use the traffic stop as a position in defense of not tasering. But in reality the running away from the officer while being commanded to stop is indeed an offence of it’s own. So using your own analogy why do police officer enter into pursuits and arrest drunk drivers aggressively when they refuse to listen to their commands. Because they are breaking the law. Once the young man started to run in circles he made a choice. The consequences of that choice was the taser. Looks like he was having fun knowing that there would be consequences. Hope he learned his lesson.
-
- Brian - May 4, 2010 at 1:57 PM
-
The cop didn’t use the Taser when this knucklehead was running toward the infield, where he might actually present a danger to the players, he was running aimlessly in left-center, far away from any of the outfielders. It just seems like the cop was simply tired from chasing him and decided to use last-resort force.
It does send a good message to other people who think it’s a fun, playful activity to run onto the field. But there was no need to send that message in this scenario. He didn’t present a risk to anyone. The only weapon he was holding was a towel. This was excessive.
Also, that’s the greatest picture ever posted on CTB.
-
- Mike - May 4, 2010 at 1:57 PM
-
You sir, are a moron.
-
- Darryl - May 4, 2010 at 1:58 PM
-
Craig,
Gotta disagree. This is a very different world than the world that existed when Morganna ran on to the field. We need to start thinking a little less about “did they need to tase him?” and more about respect for the law. Don’t run on to the field. Period.
