Tasered Philadelphia Phillie Fan - Page 3

ragingclue · 05-06-2010, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeremyc74

Your argument is that just because it's not going to kill anyone, we should just disregaurd the Constitution?

No point in going any further with this for me then.

No; I was using a hyperbole. We run into so much opposition to progress simply because of the fact that everything is categorized as racial profiling, religious persecution, or just general egregious insensitivity. It would be great to enact measures that would allow us to protect our citizens. That would be nice. Unfortunately, there are some people in this country who are so quick to jump the gun and label any effort to make progress as the categories listed above.

With the fight on terrorism in our own country, we're each going to have to "give a little" to "get a lot" and do what's best for the country as a whole. Sure certain elements may have been deemed to be unconstitutional, and so should be abandoned, but my point is that there are certain groups on both sides of the fence that won't budge, not allowing us to make any progress at all. The ACLU is definitely one of those groups.

How about we figure out a way to monitor suspected individuals that fits within the bounds of the constitution?

Or should we just let them run amok because we'd rather have our family members blown up than be accused of being racist?

jeremyc74 · 05-06-2010, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ragingclue

my point is that there are certain groups on both sides of the fence that won't budge, not allowing us to make any progress at all. The ACLU is definitely one of those groups.
?

They are, and I fully support it. There is NO reason to circumvent the Constitution.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ragingclue

How about we figure out a way to monitor suspected individuals that fits within the bounds of the constitution?

?

What was being done, and what the ACLU took issue with WAS NOT within the bounds of the Constitution, so I'm not sure what your issue with them is. The Federal government bypassed the court system and just did whatever the hell it wanted to.

There are certain basic rights that a person should have. Privacy is one of them. Being put on trial when you're accused of a crime is another. If the current government wants to change those things, the put it before Congress and pass an amendment instead of just sneaking around. Of course, we both know that it wouldn't go over well if it were done publically, and that's why they didn't do it.

They scared you into wanting to give up some of your freedoms and have less control over your life. As far as I'm concerned, when you take that mentality, the terrorists have already won.

And that is my last post on the subject, as this really doesn't have anything to do with a Cop going WAY overboard and tazing a stupid skinny teenager that was posing ZERO threat to anyone.

ragingclue · 05-06-2010, 02:13 PM

Anyway, back to the topic of converstation:

Department of Justice seems to think Tasers are better and less likely to result in injury than the alternatives.

I guess the key there would be the fact that it's dependent on proper use. If an entire department drains their batteries on one guy, then yeah, his chances of being killed are higher than intended. But that goes for any sort of enforcement, be it from the taser, baton, tackling/submission, etc....

LEO's definitely get the short end of the stick here. Protection for (alleged) perps seems to be a higher priority than the safety of the LEO's themselves. The taser provides a huge advantage in that regard.

BlueZ4AZ · 05-06-2010, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeremyc74

They are, and I fully support it. There is NO reason to circumvent the Constitution.

And that is my last post on the subject, as this really doesn't have anything to do with a Cop going WAY overboard and tazing a stupid skinny teenager that was posing ZERO threat to anyone.

HEY!!!! You promised to shutty for good about the cop that properly tasered the ignorant punk that deserved it.
You broke your promise.

ragingclue · 05-06-2010, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeremyc74

They scared you into wanting to give up some of your freedoms and have less control over your life. As far as I'm concerned, when you take that mentality, the terrorists have already won.

Have less control over my life? I have nothing to hide, and I'm sure they wouldn't be coming after my phone calls anyway.

BlueZ4AZ · 05-06-2010, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeremyc74

They are, and I fully support it. There is NO reason to circumvent the Constitution.

They scared you into wanting to give up some of your freedoms and have less control over your life. As far as I'm concerned, when you take that mentality, the terrorists have already won.

Nope, wrong again. You are 0-2 today.

We make a rational decision to allow the authorities to do whatever they feel is necessary under the constitution to defend our country. ..and we trust the measures all fall under the constitution, no questions asked.

xbook · 05-06-2010, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueZ4AZ

Nope, wrong again. You are 0-2 today.

We make a rational decision to allow the authorities to do whatever they feel is necessary under the constitution to defend our country. ..and we trust the measures all fall under the constitution, no questions asked.

ragingclue · 05-06-2010, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueZ4AZ

Nope, wrong again. You are 0-2 today.

We make a rational decision to allow the authorities to do whatever they feel is necessary under the constitution to defend our country. ..and we trust the measures they take ALL fall under the constitutiion, no questions asked.

Ok that's a bit scary.

There is a need for checks and balances.

BlueZ4AZ · 05-06-2010, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ragingclue

Ok that's a bit scary.

There is a need for checks and balances.

To rephrase - We trust they are following all the necessary checks and balances, and then make decisions that follow the constitution.

BlueZ4AZ · 05-06-2010, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xbook

Sorry, just not getting it. But knowing you, there is some kind of negative connotation here. Do explain. I can't wait.

xbook · 05-06-2010, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueZ4AZ

Sorry, just not getting it. But knowing you, there is some kind of negative connotation here. Do explain. I can't wait.

I am calling you a sheep. Just following what ever the government tells you. Expecting that they are doing everything 100% by the book.

BlueZ4AZ · 05-06-2010, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xbook

I am calling you a sheep. Just following what ever the government tells you. Expecting that they are doing everything 100% by the book.

What I'd like to call you I really can't repeat here.

jeremyc74 · 05-06-2010, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueZ4AZ

Sorry, just not getting it.

No real surprise there!

BlueZ4AZ · 05-06-2010, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeremyc74

No real surprise there!

Try to keep it original will you. You see, I basically already used that same line before you did, predicting the little sheep picture was some kind of negaitve BS.

xbook · 05-06-2010, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueZ4AZ

What I'd like to call you I really can't repeat here.

Go ahead, call me whatever you'd like. I couldn't care less what some sheep thinks of me.

BlueZ4AZ · 05-06-2010, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xbook

Go ahead, call me whatever you'd like. I couldn't care less what some sheep thinks of me.

Good one. Why, you really got me there.

scollins · 05-06-2010, 08:01 PM

Had one of the players knocked this guy out, he'd be guilty of assault. The dumbass "fan" would sue him, the club, the ballpark and who knows who else and probably win. Players are not responsible for enforcing the rules, security and/or police have that resposibility.

Tasers are used to quickly gain control over a suspect while significantly reducing the risk to the officer. Tackling someone usually results in a major struggle where the suspect and officer are injured. As officers are much more likely to have more interactions with many suspects than any one suspect will have with police, giving the officer more force options is warranted.

Do tasers have risks? Of course, which is why it is called "less lethal" and not non-lethal. But it doesn't present risks any greater than physical force (tackling, compliance holds, batons, sprays, bean bag rounds, rubber projectiles, etc.). It does reduce the risk to the officer however, thus the reason it is the most widely used less-lethal option.

Yearofthe1 · 05-07-2010, 08:03 AM

All this arguing over the subject is great and all, but you all seem to be forgetting the important stuff here:

Seeing a numb-skull getting tasered when they deserve it is pretty fucking hilarious.

So let's all try and consider the relevant stuff, too!

BlueZ4AZ · 05-12-2010, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yearofthe1

All this arguing over the subject is great and all, but you all seem to be forgetting the important stuff here:

Seeing a numb-skull getting tasered when they deserve it is pretty fucking hilarious.

So let's all try and consider the relevant stuff, too!

I saw the video and laughed my ass off too. What a complete and utter jackass this kid was. He definitely deserved the taser. He dropped like a fly when the cop hit him with it.

BlueZ4AZ · 05-13-2010, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peanuto

And no more tasers in Philly. They just passed a new rule this afternoon that any fans that go on the field will be wrangled by the security and then handed over to police.

Not entirely correct. It's security team first, then if they believe the police need to be involved in stopping the idiot, they will get involved...which means if they still need the taser, they'll use it.

05-06-2010, 08:01 PM	#61
scollins Bootleggin' 'n Gunrunnin' Drives: 2010 e70 X5 35d Join Date: May 2007 Location: Renton, WA Posts: 2,346 iTrader: (3)	Had one of the players knocked this guy out, he'd be guilty of assault. The dumbass "fan" would sue him, the club, the ballpark and who knows who else and probably win. Players are not responsible for enforcing the rules, security and/or police have that resposibility. Tasers are used to quickly gain control over a suspect while significantly reducing the risk to the officer. Tackling someone usually results in a major struggle where the suspect and officer are injured. As officers are much more likely to have more interactions with many suspects than any one suspect will have with police, giving the officer more force options is warranted. Do tasers have risks? Of course, which is why it is called "less lethal" and not non-lethal. But it doesn't present risks any greater than physical force (tackling, compliance holds, batons, sprays, bean bag rounds, rubber projectiles, etc.). It does reduce the risk to the officer however, thus the reason it is the most widely used less-lethal option. __________________ Scott 2010 E70 X5 35d Alpine White on Black with Dark Bamboo trim ZAP \| ZCW \| ZPP \| ZPS \| ZRC \| ZTP \| 322 \| 328 \| 330 \| 386 \| 4AZ \| 4UB \| 655 \| 6FL \| 6NF 2008 Ducati 1098S Red naturally....

05-07-2010, 08:03 AM	#62
Yearofthe1 An ex-addict :-( Drives: VFR1200F Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: N. Va. Posts: 691 iTrader: (1)	All this arguing over the subject is great and all, but you all seem to be forgetting the important stuff here: Seeing a numb-skull getting tasered when they deserve it is pretty fucking hilarious. So let's all try and consider the relevant stuff, too! __________________ 135i Montego Blue, Grey Boston Leather, MT, Sport Package, Premium Package, Navi, Premium Sound, Heated Seats, iPod. [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] We search for certainty and call what we find destiny. Everything is possible, yet only one thing happens. -Michael and Ellen Kaplan

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-06-2010, 02:13 PM	#47
ragingclue My interior is turrible Drives: stickferanaxle Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: mulletville Posts: 6,667 iTrader: (1)	Anyway, back to the topic of converstation: Department of Justice seems to think Tasers are better and less likely to result in injury than the alternatives. I guess the key there would be the fact that it's dependent on proper use. If an entire department drains their batteries on one guy, then yeah, his chances of being killed are higher than intended. But that goes for any sort of enforcement, be it from the taser, baton, tackling/submission, etc.... LEO's definitely get the short end of the stick here. Protection for (alleged) perps seems to be a higher priority than the safety of the LEO's themselves. The taser provides a huge advantage in that regard.