articles.baltimoresun.com — This is not about disrupting or interfering with a baseball game. It is about security. No one knows what will happen next when a fan gets loose in a packed stadium; there isn't time to stop and think, 'Oh, it's just a teenager.' He or she has to be corralled, and if Tasering shortens the process, do it.
May 25, 2010 View in Crawl 4
d3dmMay 26, 2010
I'd like to see some security guys dressed on gorilla suits wearing leather boots and vests ride out on the field on horses and throw a big rope net over the fan and drag him off the field.
929yellowjacketMay 26, 2010
Don't worry Mercedes383, she's not all there. The rest of us got the joke.
mweatherMay 26, 2010
"Ever try to go hands on with someone that doesn't want to be caught. "I'm sure tasers make it easier to stop such people, but so do guns, and we don't use those either.
mightytribbleMay 26, 2010
But how many pitch invasions have ended without any attempt to injure a player or referee? I don't know the actual numbers, but given the tiny number of news articles about attacks on the pitch, I'd guess that the vast majority of fans-on-the-grass incursions are nonviolent, drunk dumbassery. Life is all about managing risk. That Monica Seles was stabbed by a fan does not mean that every grounds invasion is an attempted assault. We should respond based on what is most likely, not on what the worst case is ; otherwise we may as well just have snipers in the rafters.
mightytribbleMay 26, 2010
Incendiary would damage the turf. You want something explode-y, not too penetrate-y. Air-burst, maybe?
bonestampMay 26, 2010
I still stand by the $10,000 fine... it's steep, but a solid deterrent. But maybe release attack dogs to tackle them? Even if you've got $10k, you probably don't want a dog chompin' on your arm.
j4200May 27, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
dorombMay 27, 2010
If you work security, "trying to go hands on with someone that doesn't want to be caught" is YOUR JOB. That's what they pay you for, not leaning up against the wall and looking tough. If you aren't in good enough physical shape to apprehend an unarmed person without pulling a Taser, find another job.
hakamanakusJun 2, 2010
I'm fairly certain tazers were not invented to replace guns as lethal force. If some drug junkie is carrying a shotgun and blowing people away at the mall, do you expect police to walk up and tazer the guy? Until they make a semi-automatic tazer that can quickly and accurately fire at distances over a few yards multiple times without reloading, the answer is no. The perp needs to be brought down as quickly as possible while minimizing civilian and police casualties, that that would involve a firearm.Tazers were invented as an intermediate step between subduing with body/handcuffs (works best when subject is not resisting, otherwise can end up with blood/broken bones. Blood is bad since you don't know what disease may be carried in it) and lethal force.Using the argument that tazer is only to be used in cases where guns would have been used is disingenuous at best. Guns have different pros and cons and will be used in different situations accordingly.