phils phans... always full of class

[nymr83]

You know what would be a more effective deterrent than tasers? Lifetime ban from all ballparks.

its unenforceable, unless you want to require a birth certificate, photo id, and social security card to enter a ballpark (hell, we couldnt even keep a guy on a "no fly list" from getting on a plane!)

[Guest Edgy DC]

The sheer volume of the number of taser-related deaths makes incontrovertible the fact that they can and do kill. Many of these deaths are unavoidable tragedies where an officer acted legitimately in response to imminent threat of violence. The boy in the ballpark doesn't fit that description in any way.

[Centerfield]

do you have proof they are more dangerous than that? Here's a differing opinion: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/12/05/20081205taser1205.html Also within that article is a claim that "since 2001, there have been more than 380 deaths following police Taser strikes in the United States and 26 in Canada. Medical examiners have ruled that a Taser was a cause, contributing factor or could not be ruled out in more than 30 of those deaths" which certainly contradicts your claim that a taser has "rarely if ever killed someone."

The problem is, the numbers, when presented in this manner, mean almost nothing (and I don't mean any offense to you Gwreck, I know you didn't write the article).

Saying more than 380 deaths have followed Taser strikes is silly. It's like saying 380 people died while watching Oprah. It doesn't mean the taser or Oprah, had anything to do with the deaths. In fact, in the next sentence, it indicates that only 30 of those deaths could have possibly resulted from the taser. Meaning that first number, 380, is not only meaningless, but misleading.

So we have 30 deaths since 2001. How many times was the taser used? Do we have an overall percentage? How does this compare with other non-lethal methods (tackling, clubbing, rubber bullets etc.)?

Until we get some real data, I don't see how one can have an opinion one way or the other. Moreover, unless there is some strong research confirming the safety of tasers, you probably shouldn't be using them at all.

All of this being said, if you are going to taser people who run on the field, it should be disclosed ahead of time and uniformly applied.

Since I am an attorney, I am happy to offer CBP language for their sign:

WARNING: ANY AND ALL PERSONS WHO RUN OUT ON THE FIELD WILL BE TASERED. NO QUESTIONS ASKED. DRUNK TEENS, LITTLE OLD LADIES, NAKED PERVERTS, IT DOESN'T MATTER. WHEN WE SAY ALL, WE MEAN ALL. YOU SHOULD ALSO KNOW THAT THE RESEARCH ON THE SAFETY OF TASERS IS INCONCLUSIVE. WHICH MEANS YOU COULD DIE.

[Centerfield]

Nymr83 wrote: You know what would be a more effective deterrent than tasers? Lifetime ban from all ballparks. its unenforceable, unless you want to require a birth certificate, photo id, and social security card to enter a ballpark (hell, we couldnt even keep a guy on a "no fly list" from getting on a plane!)

I know. Until they develop retinal scan technology at ticket gates.

[Willets Point]

Centerfield wrote: Nymr83 wrote: You know what would be a more effective deterrent than tasers? Lifetime ban from all ballparks. its unenforceable, unless you want to require a birth certificate, photo id, and social security card to enter a ballpark (hell, we couldnt even keep a guy on a "no fly list" from getting on a plane!) I know. Until they develop retinal scan technology at ticket gates.

Arizona's in the vanguard on this.

[Gwreck]

Centerfield wrote: The problem is, the numbers, when presented in this manner, mean almost nothing (and I don't mean any offense to you Gwreck, I know you didn't write the article). Saying more than 380 deaths have followed Taser strikes is silly. It's like saying 380 people died while watching Oprah. It doesn't mean the taser or Oprah, had anything to do with the deaths. In fact, in the next sentence, it indicates that only 30 of those deaths could have possibly resulted from the taser. Meaning that first number, 380, is not only meaningless, but misleading. So we have 30 deaths since 2001. How many times was the taser used? Do we have an overall percentage? How does this compare with other non-lethal methods (tackling, clubbing, rubber bullets etc.)? Until we get some real data, I don't see how one can have an opinion one way or the other. Moreover, unless there is some strong research confirming the safety of tasers, you probably shouldn't be using them at all.

No worries, none taken. 15 seconds of googling was used here really to demonstrate the ease of finding a dissenting viewpoint (fully aware of its limitations). I am unlikely to find a peer-reviewed scientific study without a subscription to one of those journals.

[Guest Edgy DC]

There's plenty of real data out there though. And, most assuredly, it shows that tasers are dangerous and, too often, deadly. They certainly shouldn't be used in non-threatening situations.

[Centerfield]

If it does, then I'm with you. If it shows conclusively that it's no more dangerous than tackling a guy to the ground, then taser them.

If it's inconclusive, then err on the side of caution and run down your perps.

Or get cowboys with lassos.

[metirish]

The day after an ex NYPD detective , now a lawyer was telling Francesa that "no one has died from a tasering, on very, very rare occasions it happens, usually that person would have an underlying condition , like a heart problem "....it sounded like such bullshit but Francesa treated it like gospel.

[seawolf17]

Willets Point wrote: Centerfield wrote: Nymr83 wrote: You know what would be a more effective deterrent than tasers? Lifetime ban from all ballparks. its unenforceable, unless you want to require a birth certificate, photo id, and social security card to enter a ballpark (hell, we couldnt even keep a guy on a "no fly list" from getting on a plane!) I know. Until they develop retinal scan technology at ticket gates. Arizona's in the vanguard on this.

No, they just automatically tase anyone darker than Gwen Stefani.

[Guest Edgy DC]

metirish wrote: The day after an ex NYPD detective , now a lawyer was telling Francesa that "no one has died from a tasering, on very, very rare occasions it happens, usually that person would have an underlying condition , like a heart problem "....it sounded like such bullshit but Francesa treated it like gospel.

I like that. Nobody dies, but when they do...

[Centerfield]

...it's their own fault for being weak anyway."

[Frayed Knot]

There was a death from a taser in Virginia recently (like in the last few weeks) and I believe the article on that one referenced one other in the same town or county a year or so before that.

It just seemed unnecessary in this case. I'm all for dopes getting arrested; I just don't see where every arrest requires the perp being tased first.

[G-Fafif]

In memory of the late Robin Roberts, all Citizens Bank Park tasers are being lowered to half voltage.

[metsmarathon]

i wonder if the deaths from tasering resulted from single brief routine use of the taser, or repeated/multiple/protracted/non-routine use of the taser.

because you can tackle a guy with a weak heart and it can go out on you. or you can break his neck, or important bones and joints and stuff that aren't as easily damaged when a guy falls like a sack of potatoes to the ground without another 200lbs of man driving him down.

i do like the idea of cowboys with lassos, though. granted, somebody'd sue over rope burn...

[metirish]

NYC had a case back in '08 that was tragic all around. A "disturbed" man was up on top of a store awning naked.....the police lieutenant ordered him tasered to get him down.... he fell ten feet to his death....a few days later the cop took his own life.

http://www.newser.com/story/38989/ny-taser-cop-commits-suicide.html

[Frayed Knot]

If it's inconclusive, then err on the side of caution and run down your perps. Or get cowboys with lassos.

See, here I think you're onto something.
Each stadium/team should have its own method of running down escaped fans.

The lasso thing is great but they should only handle it that way in Texas. Some guy busts out of the gate on horseback and you'll be roped and tied within 10 seconds or your next run is free. Of course if you do get snagged your problems have just begun. "Heat up the branding iron, Rusty"
- In Philly after they catch a guy they then bring a drunk out of the stands to throw up on him. A specially marked ticket makes a different patron each game into that night's designated drunk. Talk about your win-win situations - one guy runs onto the field and TWO guys get to talk about their experiences at work the next day! That's if either of them remember it.
- In Miami the Marlins should have a big-ass fishing pole manned by some character out of a Hemingway novel at the ready to reel 'em in. Harpoons could work also I suppose.
- Minnesota should use a pair of Scandinavian looking babe twins and just entice the guy out of his romp. Then the cops will stomp on his ass while he's distracted and slobbering.
- Milwaukee cops should just hit the guy in the face with a snow shovel, I'm sure there are plenty of those around.
- San Diego could do the same thing only with a surf board.
- In San Fran the Giants won't do anything because the city council would have long ago declared the city to be a illegal fan haven.
- They won't do anything in Toronto either because they're too polite to do otherwise.
- Yanqui fans will, of course, throw batteries at the perp ... car batteries. Plus, you can pick them up right outside the stadium, and cheap, often with wires still attached.
- Baltimore cops will just catch them the usual way but prevent further incidents with two words: Crabs, Testicles
- Atlanta could reinstate Chief Nok-a-homa who would then have the option to turn the dude into a soprano with what the locals there call: 'Tomahawk Justice'

[MFS62]

That took too much work not to have earned a BOC.

Later

[nymr83]

[crossout:1h4noipf]Or get cowboys with lassos.[/crossout:1h4noipf]

as FK said, you're onto something. They should wear team colors and come charging out of the bullpen like fake knights at Medieval Times! Mr. Met can mount the lead horse if time permits. Oh, and if the horse shits on the field the idiot gets to clean it up.

[Guest Rockin' Doc]

I am obviously not an expert on Tasers (and similar devices), but the research I have done on line in the past few hours leads me to believe the lethality of such devices is being over stated.

In 2007 the School of Emergency Medicine at Wake Forest University conducted a review of 1,000 taser incidents and found that 99.7% of the individuals tased suffered only minimal injuries such as scrapes, bruises, or muscle stiffness if they suffered any residual effects at all. The remaining 0.3% of the tased individuals suffered injuries severe enough to require hospital admission; two with head injuries associated with their falling and one was admitted for nonspecific illness 2 days after his initial tasing and arrest. http://www.news-medical.net/news/2007/10/09/30945.aspx

In January of 2010, Angela Wright a researcher for Amnesty International and author of the organizations 2008 report regarding tasers stated, "Tasers are not the 'non- lethal' weapons they are portrayed to be. They can kill and should only be used as a last resort."

She cites Amnesty International research figures that report that 360 in the US have died since 2001 as a result of being subdued by a taser. These deaths were out of an estimated 660,000 taser usaes on suspects and inmates according to Amnesty International's research. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/01/17/82495/police-defend-use-of-tasers-as.html


A friend of mine's son is a Deputy Sheriff in a nearby county. Part of his training required that all cadets be pepper sprayed and in a seperate incident be subdued with a Taser gun. My freind's son said the pepper spray was bad and the effects lasted much longer, but the taser was far worse. He stated the Taser caused terrible pain for the 5-6 seconds he received a charge. However, other than some severe fatigue for an hour or so and some muscle stiffness that lasted roughly 24 hours the effects didn't last long. Still, he said if he had to endure either the pepper spray or the Taser again he would definitely choose to be pepper sprayed. At least anectdotally, it seems to me that the taser isn't too dangerous, at least for those in relatively good health, or law enforcement agencies across the country would shy away from using it in training excercises of new cadets.

Assuming the figures compiled by Amnesty International are accurate, they suggest the non-lethal outcome for taser uses between 2001 and 2008 to be at 99.95%. I'm sure there is some statistical error that can be assumed in that figure, but it suggests, at least to me, that Tasers are pretty safe when used properly.

Obviously, others may feel differently, but I think we each must accept the consequences of our actions. Ultimately, if the kid had stayed in his seat and acted in a responsible manner he wouldn't have subjected himself to being Tasered and arrested.

[Guest Edgy DC]

But, if my math is right, we're talking one fatality per 1,833 uses then. That's not an acceptable rate to me at all. One can hardly assume that the fatalaty rate of catching somebody on grass is comparable, even with a hard takedown.

[bmfc1]

http://deadspin.com/5534040/for-the-phillies-v-is-for-victory-and-vagina

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Vomit Boy pleads guilty to simple assault, disorderly conduct and harassment. Probation likely.

[bmfc1]

"We're the Worst!" admits [u:1qsosaxy]Philadelphia City Paper[/u:1qsosaxy].

http://citypaper.net/articles/2010/05/27/philadelphia-sports-fans

[metirish]

The worst yet?

Little Phillies Fan Boozing

[Guest themetfairy]

metirish wrote: The worst yet? Little Phillies Fan Boozing

That sounds like a poll question.

I still think the guy who intentionally vomited on the off-duty cop and his little kids is the douchiest.

[A Boy Named Seo]

Yeah, give the kid a break. That game was a nail-biter.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Well, vomit is probalby worse than beer for a kid. But if they're serving Bud, who can tell the difference?

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

If it weren't for this, there would have been nothing offensive at Citizen's Bank this weekend.

Really, though, what's worse... if the kid grabbed dad's drink and is actually having beer, or if his parents thought it would be a good idea to refill a used beer bottle with a child-appropriate beverage? I mean, the former's an unhappy accident, but the latter's a willful act of stupidity garnished with needless complication.

[MFS62]

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Really, though, what's worse... if the kid grabbed dad's drink and is actually having beer, or if his parents thought it would be a good idea to refill a used beer bottle with a child-appropriate beverage? I mean, the former's an unhappy accident, but the latter's a willful act of stupidity garnished with needless complication.

It WAS a beer.
And Pete Rose bet the kid ten bucks he couldn't chug it.

Later