05-04-2010, 05:07 PM
<!--quoteo(post=94731:date=May 4 2010, 04:01 PM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ May 4 2010, 04:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=94717:date=May 4 2010, 03:49 PM:name=Rappster)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Rappster @ May 4 2010, 03:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=94702:date=May 4 2010, 03:34 PM:name=BT)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BT @ May 4 2010, 03:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=94642:date=May 4 2010, 01:43 PM:name=Rappster)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Rappster @ May 4 2010, 01:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->The moment he decided to run on the field...he lost the argument. He gets no say in what a policeman decides to do to stop him...
Taze him.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You realize the ramifications of this argument, right?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I do...and it has limits. But...if I'm the on the jury (knowing only what I'm seeing right now), the taser stands up.
A gun does not. A beating does not.
A taser to subdue recklessness does...
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But your argument in this case only applies to the Philles kid. The premise of your first statement is that the individual merits of the case don't matter, the simple act of breaking the law is enough for the lawbreaker to lose any protections the law gives him.
I might agree with you that a taser was needed in this case, but I completely disagree that he lost all say in the matter simply by stepping on the field. Those are 2 separate arguments.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I know...but, I've always viewed the law as being dependent on the good judgment of those involved. When a cop dispenses justice...he is also held accountable, but I still think common sense needs to apply.
When that kid ran on the field...he put himself at the mercy of the authorities...at the mercy of their good judgment. I think the taser was within bounds. That was my point.
Taze him.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You realize the ramifications of this argument, right?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I do...and it has limits. But...if I'm the on the jury (knowing only what I'm seeing right now), the taser stands up.
A gun does not. A beating does not.
A taser to subdue recklessness does...
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But your argument in this case only applies to the Philles kid. The premise of your first statement is that the individual merits of the case don't matter, the simple act of breaking the law is enough for the lawbreaker to lose any protections the law gives him.
I might agree with you that a taser was needed in this case, but I completely disagree that he lost all say in the matter simply by stepping on the field. Those are 2 separate arguments.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I know...but, I've always viewed the law as being dependent on the good judgment of those involved. When a cop dispenses justice...he is also held accountable, but I still think common sense needs to apply.
When that kid ran on the field...he put himself at the mercy of the authorities...at the mercy of their good judgment. I think the taser was within bounds. That was my point.