Tasering the Phillies Fan--Too Far?

[arnisador]

The Taserification of America (http://www.alternet.org/rights/146755/the_taserification_of_america)


The whole justification for police to get tasers in the first place was to subdue potentially violent suspects -- but it's gone way, way, past that.
(http://www.alternet.org/rights/146755/the_taserification_of_america)

My gut instinct [was] the officer had used excessive force. I've been watching baseball games for more than 40 years, and the drills is always the same. The fan isn't trying to do harm, just get attention; it used to be that the TV cameras never even showed a field-jumper for exactly that reason[...]People forget that the whole justification for police to get Tasers in the first place was to subdue potentially violent suspects in cases in the past in which they might have been tempted to use lethal force. But the notion that the cops would have pulled a gun and shot 17-year-old field jumper Steve Consalvi is absurd, which means the rationale for tasing him is...what?
He points out that the crime in question was a misdemeanor. I have mixed feelings. The officer could have injured himself tackling this guy, but I as I hear of kids being tasered at elementary schools I too wonder if the taser is shifting from less lethal than a gun to less hassle than wrestling. It's worth thinking about...especially since there have been deaths associated with its use.

Here's a picture of the event (see this post (http://www.fmatalk.com/showthread.php?p=49622&page=2#post49622) for more details; click on the image below to see a larger version of this picture):
945

The article also mentions that safety issues on the field are real--e.g., the stabbing of tennis star Monica Seles in 1993 and the beating of Royals first base coach Tom Gamboa in 2002.

[Carol]

There have been deaths associated with all forms of less-lethal force.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Snelgrove

The TASER is one of many tools. From what I understand, LEOs have a process to follow with regards to how they escalate their force. One of the LEOs on MT has said that the TASER has, overall, shown to be one of the safer methods of force for the police officer and for the suspect.

I don't know what that department's policy is, but that appears to be a judicious use of force to my untrained eyes.

[arnisador]

It's true that he may have ultimately been injured less than if he had been tackled and twisted an ankle or something. On the other hand, it's still a misdemeanor--and was clearly not intended to be harmful to anyone, however annoying it may have been. I share the writer's concern as to whether the bar is being set too low, but I'm not prepared to condemn this particular use of it.

[lhommedieu]

If this fan had had a congenital heart defect and died as a result of being tasered, we'd be treated to a different news cycle about the appropriate use of force. I agree that the bar's been set too low in this case. The argument that if officers might be hurt as a result of tackling an unruly fan, then the use of tasers is justifiable, just doesn't hold water, in my opinion. You could argue for the use of rubber bullets, etc. in that case, or some other "non-lethal" form of intervention.

[PG Michael B]

Man what a waste..all those bats and they resort to tazering...LOL.....he gets what he gets..keep your ass in the cheap seats and smashing down dogs and you wouldn't get zapped..He is a special kind of stupid.

[jwinch2]

On the other hand, it's still a misdemeanor--and was clearly not intended to be harmful to anyone...

Hogwash. There is no way to know whether it was intended to be harmful to anyone or not. They did exactly the right thing.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/baseball/news/2002/09/19/royals_whitesox_ap/

http://www.sptimes.com/News/100799/Sports/Disturbed_fan_stabs_t.shtml

[lhommedieu]

Man what a waste..all those bats and they resort to tazering...LOL.....he gets what he gets..keep your ass in the cheap seats and smashing down dogs and you wouldn't get zapped..He is a special kind of stupid.

LOL. Although I suspect we may disagree on what he may or many not deserve that's still pretty funny, Mike. (Trolls take note: it is possible to disagree and remain friends at the end of the day.)

Just wondering though: If a guy decides he's got the right to (illegally) tightrope walk between sky scapers, would you pick:

a) a citation and a stiff fine
b) pick him off with a Super Hornet

Best,

Steve

[Carol]

LOL. Although I suspect we may disagree on what he may or many not deserve that's still pretty funny, Mike. (Trolls take note: it is possible to disagree and remain friends at the end of the day.)

Just wondering though: If a guy decides he's got the right to (illegally) tightrope walk between sky scapers, would you pick:

a) a citation and a stiff fine
b) pick him off with a Super Hornet

Best,

Steve

If a citation is an option then he's just committed a civil infraction, and not a crime. So natch, citation and stiff fine is an easy choice.

Although if that bugger comes charging across that tightrope at me it just might be game on!!! LFAO!

[PG Michael B]

Pellet gun and a net followed by a swift kick in the butt for being a special kind of dumbass....lol......if he is doing it Texas well then it may be a 30/30 and a net..lol

[eskrimakaliarnis.com]

Steve,

"Man on Wire" was awesome ;)

That guy would make a great Martial Artist and IMO was an inspiration. He was breaking new ground and making what some would deem impossible possible.

A fan running onto the field of play of whatever sport requires a lot less planning and intelligence quotient. Though it does help if you're drunk :)

Simon.

[lhommedieu]

Steve,

"Man on Wire" was awesome ;)

That guy would make a great Martial Artist and IMO was an inspiration. He was breaking new ground and making what some would deem impossible possible.

A fan running onto the field of play of whatever sport requires a lot less planning and intelligence quotient. Though it does help if you're drunk :)

Simon.

Agreed. The weakness of reductio ad absurdum is sometimes a reliance on tenuous analogies...

Anyhow, I was just having fun with Mike - although I am shocked, shocked, to discover that they allow nets in Texas to thwart would-be high wire artists. Unless this is what he meant:

http://www.bugfacts.biz/images/products/detail/Pro_ButterflyNet_61350.jpg

Hmm, maybe that's why Man on Wire was filmed in New York City...

On a similar note, that bastion of New York liberalism, the New York Times, agreed with me in today's op ed:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/07/opinion/07fri4.html?ref=opinion

Best,

Steve

[Carol]

The argument that if officers might be hurt as a result of tackling an unruly fan, then the use of tasers is justifiable, just doesn't hold water, in my opinion.

Who has made this argument?

If it was directed at me, please re-read what I wrote.



One of the LEOs on MT has said that the TASER has, overall, shown to be one of the safer methods of force for the police officer and for the suspect.

[lhommedieu]

Who has made this argument?

If it was directed at me, please re-read what I wrote.

Actually, the argument was made here (http://www.fmatalk.com/showthread.php?7929-Tasering-the-Phillies-Fan-Too-Far&p=49653#post49653). Specifically,


The officer could have injured himself tackling this guy…I too wonder if the taser is shifting from less lethal than a gun to less hassle than wrestling.It's worth noting that Arnisador does not seem committed to marrying the argument, and is probably just taking it out on a first date.

The Times op ed that I cited does marry the argument:


The electric stun gun that instantly dropped Mr. Consalvi in the eighth inning was fired by a police officer who clearly had no desire to dance around the outfield with a 17-year-old. The Philadelphia police chief said he had acted properly to stop a fleeing suspect, which, we suppose, technically, Mr. Consalvi was.


Mr. Consalvi was also outnumbered, had no way to escape and posed no evident threat, except to the flow of a good ballgame and maybe to the pride of officers who were older, heavier and slower than he.


Taser defenders argue that stadium romps are no joke; athletes sometimes need protecting from deranged and violent fans. Other ballplayers have been harassed and tackled. The tennis star Monica Seles was stabbed.It's interesting to note that several posters to the original blog have described how, in the old days, stadium streakers were merely tackled, taken to a back room in the stadium, and given a good beating by stadium security guards. The blog also notes how, in the old days, t.v. cameras did not take note of the runner, on the grounds that if it was attention that they wanted, then why give it to them?

The blog actually makes a much broader argument about the use of tasers in a post 9-11 environment:


But even more damaging is the way that attitude -- that any kind of lawbreaking or even potential lawbreaking requires the harshest possible response, with no regard to more than 200 years of momentum toward basic civil liberties and human rights -- is filtering down to other aspects of American life.Best,

Steve

[arnisador]

I'm of two minds. It galls me to see LEOs injure their backs carrying away limp protesters, but on the other hand, some risk of injury goes with the job, and you can't use protecting the officer as an argument for the officer not protecting citizens--including imminent arrestees who have of course not yet been convicted of anything. I don't know where to draw the line, but I feel as though the taser is being used a bit too readily.

[lhommedieu]

So, that would be a lunch date, then...

Best,

Steve

[arnisador]

In my defense, I was told it would be a free lunch.

I honestly don't know where I want to come down. A LEO one county over from me damaged his knee very badly when he tried to knee a resisting drunk and missed--he struck out with such force that his supporting knee gave out and he needed surgery and may not have come back. I wish he would've tased the guy, in retrospect--but the drunk was just refusing to cooperate and be cuffed, if memory serves, not swinging at the LEO, so in prospect I might have said that going straight to the taser was too much. I truly don't know where to draw the line, but I'd like to see some national associations weigh in on the matter.

[PG Michael B]

I tell you what, a shotgun blast full of rock salt would have dropped him and dang sure sent a message to any other further knuckle heads who wanna play the crazy fan position..LOL...is that extreme?...hmmm it's that dang Texanese in me I guess... ;)

[punisher73]

If there is a police officer present and he gives the lawful command to stop and you continue to run it bumps the charge up to a felony (In Michigan it would be Resisting and Officer).

Here is the footage of the incident.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqtPUhYdz6M

Notice that they run around TRYING to catch him prior to the deployment of the TASER. They did try to use other means and the suspect kept elluding them. They couldn't get close enough to tackle, so according to use of force policy when lower levels of force have not proven to be successful, you can up the level. In this case they used the TASER to subdue him without injury. With the video footage, anyone actually trained in the use of force continuum would know that the force was appropriate and justifiable.

How about that phone call to dad asking for permission? This guy was an IDIOT!

[lhommedieu]

Agreed - he's an idiot. And he is certainly faster than the officers trying to catch him. But I think the force continuum argument begs the question that the original "Taserification of America" article asked originally, i.e. "Is it legitimate to taser someone, who, at that moment of being an idiot, poses no direct physical threat to himself or anyone else?"

Imagine a situation closer to home: You're at a wedding reception and your drunk uncle Charlie gets up on a table and starts to dance. He won't come down despite the requests of his relatives and guests, and the reception hall owner calls the cops. They ask him to come down and he won't, and no one wants to get close enough to him because Uncle Charlie weighs a good 300 pounds and would pack quite a wallop if he lands on you - so they taser him. Uncle Charlie's heart stops and he dies. It's rare but it happens. Now your average guest who doesn't know uncle Charlie thinks he's an idiot; the millions who see him get tasered on YouTube think he's an idiot; you think he's an idiot - but he's your favorite Uncle and now he's dead. I know everyone says, "Taser the idiot - he deserves it." But context is everything and if it was your Uncle Charlie you'd probably be thinking, "Why did they have to Taser him - he wasn't hurting anyone?"

Following is a force continuum description that I found on the web:

http://www.policetest.info/FORCE_CONTINUUM_POLICE_USE_OF_FORCE.htm

Notice that for Level Four it says that tasers should be deployed "when the suspect is violent or threatening..." and that it "can be especially useful for controlling non-criminal violent behavior (emphasis mine), such as persons who are mentally impaired, or under the influence of mind-altering substances. Tasers can be used (like batons and pepper spray that are also described on this level) after Level Three techiques (empty hand techniques that are either "soft" or "hard" depending on the level of potential injury incurred by the perpetrator) have been tried and have failed. Level Three techniques are designed to counter a suspects "aggression" and can include guiding, holding, and restraining techniques as well as punches and kicks to specific targets (the brachial plexus for example) that have a moderate risk of injury for the suspect.

Running like an idiot through a baseball stadium is not especially violent or threatening or aggressive. It's annoying and frustrating and an inconvenience to all others who have to stand and watch and wait, especially those whose job it is to stop the idiot whose doing it.

Best,

Steve

[Carol]

Personally, I think someone running through a stadium is threatening and aggressive. We know now that he was a stupid high school kid making a dumb decision, but the cops didn't have that knowledge. If LE had a way of knowing exactly who had bad intentions and who was just making a dumb mistake, their life would be a lot easier!

At least this Phillies fan didn't vomit on anyone....

[The Old Way Traveler]

I tell you what, a shotgun blast full of rock salt would have dropped him and dang sure sent a message to any other further knuckle heads who wanna play the crazy fan position..LOL...is that extreme?...hmmm it's that dang Texanese in me I guess... ;)

hahaha... i love it... i'm not from Texas but i do appreciate the creativity... that fan shouldn't have step onto the field and ran around like a douche.. i saw a hockey game once in Reno, Nevada and someone (drunk of course) wanted to play hockey without skates or pads... needless to say he got what he deserved.. a nice shoulder check into the board...

james

[punisher73]

Agreed - he's an idiot. And he is certainly faster than the officers trying to catch him. But I think the force continuum argument begs the question that the original "Taserification of America" article asked originally, i.e. "Is it legitimate to taser someone, who, at that moment of being an idiot, poses no direct physical threat to himself or anyone else?"



Following is a force continuum description that I found on the web:

http://www.policetest.info/FORCE_CONTINUUM_POLICE_USE_OF_FORCE.htm

Notice that for Level Four it says that tasers should be deployed "when the suspect is violent or threatening..." and that it "can be especially useful for controlling non-criminal violent behavior (emphasis mine), such as persons who are mentally impaired, or under the influence of mind-altering substances. Tasers can be used (like batons and pepper spray that are also described on this level) after Level Three techiques (empty hand techniques that are either "soft" or "hard" depending on the level of potential injury incurred by the perpetrator) have been tried and have failed. Level Three techniques are designed to counter a suspects "aggression" and can include guiding, holding, and restraining techniques as well as punches and kicks to specific targets (the brachial plexus for example) that have a moderate risk of injury for the suspect.

Running like an idiot through a baseball stadium is not especially violent or threatening or aggressive. It's annoying and frustrating and an inconvenience to all others who have to stand and watch and wait, especially those whose job it is to stop the idiot whose doing it.

Best,

Steve


That is an example of a use of force that many departments use (based on PPCT's original idea). The issue is that "intermediate weapons" such as the baton are a different level of force than pepper spray. In many policies, pepper spray can be used after verbal commands are used if you can articulate why you thought soft/hard empty hand control tactics did not or would not work. TASER also falls under this category in the use of force. Yes, it can be used for higher levels of force. But, the policies also allow for the use of the TASER in lower levels of force too when it is thought that the higher levels would result in more injury to the suspect or officer.

Again, it's easy to watch the footage of the event and say that it was only a kid being an idiot. But, the law doesn't allow for armchair quarterbacking. The law views what the officer had available to him AT THAT MOMENT for information. In this case, all they knew is someone ran onto the field and was getting closer to the infield and the players and was evading arrest and not complying with commands. They also know from past history that people have done that and assaulted players and in one case stabbed a player. They are paid to assume worst case scenario to assure the safety of players and fans alike.

[arnisador]

Again, it's easy to watch the footage of the event and say that it was only a kid being an idiot. But, the law doesn't allow for armchair quarterbacking. The law views what the officer had available to him AT THAT MOMENT for information. In this case, all they knew is someone ran onto the field and was getting closer to the infield and the players and was evading arrest and not complying with commands. They also know from past history that people have done that and assaulted players and in one case stabbed a player. They are paid to assume worst case scenario to assure the safety of players and fans alike.

Let me play devil's advocate for a moment here...we know fans in the past have seriously injured people on the field. If the taser had failed to operate, say, and they couldn't catch him, would using their firearm to keep him from reaching the players have been reasonable? (Ignore for the moment the safety issue of using it in a crowded stadium.) I think assuming the worst case scenario might be too much.

[punisher73]

Let me play devil's advocate for a moment here...we know fans in the past have seriously injured people on the field. If the taser had failed to operate, say, and they couldn't catch him, would using their firearm to keep him from reaching the players have been reasonable? (Ignore for the moment the safety issue of using it in a crowded stadium.) I think assuming the worst case scenario might be too much.

With the facts known at the time, no it would not be reasonable. With the facts known at the time, yes it was reasonable to TASER.
Use of the TASER is one of the lowest levels of force for many departments. Firearms are used ONLY in Deadly Force situations. So it really is apples and oranges there.

I should have worded the last sentence a little better in my previous post.