Unruly Pirates Fan Tasered & Beaten as Crowd Chants "U-S-A"

Unruly Pirates Fan Tasered & Beaten as Crowd Chants "U-S-A"

www.infowars.com

A disturbing video showing police assaulting an unruly fan is making its rounds on the web on Monday morning.

The video, captured by blogger Erik, shows a man leaving section 235 at PNC Park in Pittsburgh. The fan was swearing and refused to leave the park, according to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, and eventually had to be escorted out by police.

(visit the link for the full news article)

I feel the police and security did the right thing. The guy they went after as you can see in the video didn't want to leave the stadium. Instead he wanted to be an idiot and start shoving people. And then on top of that as security were still trying to get him to leave he reaches down and acts like he's going to whip out his penis. He's lucky he didn't get drive-stunned in his family-jewels. (If I was that security-officer I would've drive-stunned his peen off if that dude actually pulled it out.)

And one other thing to point out that's wrong as mentioned in the article is that the police and security weren't using Tasers. Those were NOT tasers they had. They were using stun-sticks.

Other than that? Enough said.

www.infowars.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Hell yes, lets electrocute people for swearing.

My problem isn't with the stun stick itself, my problem is that they're given to meat headed individuals who abuse them without consequences. Got some dude you're afraid to tackle on your own? Got a drunk guy who's swearing? Just electrocute them.

This is why rent a cops have bad name. Why bother training an overweight rent a cop in suppression techniques when you can just hand them a stungun, which risks killing people with heart attacks.

Also, the difference between a stun stick and a taser is effective range. I don't see what point there is in pointing out the difference since they are both equally lethal.

Originally posted by Lazyninja
Hell yes, lets electrocute people for swearing.

My problem isn't with the stun stick itself, my problem is that they're given to meat headed individuals who abuse them without consequences. Got some dude you're afraid to tackle on your own? Got a drunk guy who's swearing? Just electrocute them.

This is why rent a cops have bad name. Why bother training an overweight rent a cop in suppression techniques when you can just hand them a stungun, which risks killing people with heart attacks.

Also, the difference between a stun stick and a taser is effective range. I don't see what point there is in pointing out the difference since they are both equally lethal.

Drunk people hardly feel anything that's why. Secondly a stun gun and a taser are not the same. Taser uses wired probes that are used from a distance while the stun-stick and/or stun-gun you have to get up close and touch the person in the right area for them to feel it.

This guy didn't feel it enough because number one; he's drunk. Two; he's wearing a lot of clothing.

reply to post by Marked One


If it's less effective to tase someone drunk and wearing lots of clothes, isn't that more reason not to do it? Also, being drunk and wearing lots of clothes doesn't offer more protection against heart attacks caused by tasers.

Also you didn't read my point about tasers properly. The difference between taser and stun sticks is effective range, which is, the range they can be used effectively at. They are still both lethal devices, and one is not any more acceptable than the other.

Other then being a drunk who was swearing did he threaten or assault anyone?

Where is the crime?

reply to post by TheImmaculateD1


He shoved someone. And he was refusing to leave. Instead of leaving he wanted to act like he was going to whip out his junk.

reply to post by Lazyninja


A taser is the one that's going to be more likely to cause a heart-attack than a stun-stick. With a stun-stick you have to touch somebody with it up close where the most damage it'll cause would just be a nasty a burn. With a taser, the electricity from the barbs in your skin travel ALL over the body, paralyzing it. Stun-sticks don't do that.

In the video you see the security officer with the stun-stick, using it more as a way of trying to intimidate the drunk guy. Intimidate as to #1.) Keep him at bay and giving him something to think about before he shoves somebody else. #2.) Give him a reason to want to leave.

The rest of the security people don't go full force on the guy until after one of them judo-flips him to the floor and handcuffs him.

Contrast what happened in America with what people in another country did when THEIR cops got abusive.



The sad thing is the guy they beat the snot out of wasnt the cop who was hitting the guy with the stick. He was the guy trying to stop the abusive cop.

Wow. So trying to get somebody to leave a stadium when they don't want to cooperate, using whatever readily justifiable means you have at your disposal, to accomplish said task...is being abusive? How is that abusive?

reply to post by Marked One


Yep. It is.

Nothing he did justified that. Was he a jerk? Sure. But that was just pathetic on the part of the cops/security, whatever they were. Totally uncalled for. And it is my fondest hope that everyone who thinks this is acceptable behavior on the part of authority gets to enjoy it first hand someday. Just so they can admire it from a closer and more personal view point, of course.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by Marked One

 

Nothing he did justified that.

Okay. And you know this for a fact?

(BTW: I work as a security-officer and I've had to escort people out of places. I know how these things work.)

reply to post by Marked One


Based on the video and the article I dont see any breach of policy or excessive use of force on the subject. The person is intoxicated, he is refusing verbal commands to leave the park, and eventually has to be escorted out. His actions toward the security officer (this part is heavily dependant upon State law) can rise to a felony level.

Some stadiums use "security" who are in fact comissioned police officer working off duty. Some states allow security officers limited arrest authority, and other states treat security officers at certain venues (large events, Hospitals, etc) as falling under emergency personnel (Police, Fire, EMS, Security).

When the guy pushed the Security Officer he committed assault (either misd or felony, again depending on the state). The officer deployed his taser, which from the looks of it only one probe made successful contact, which is why the taser did not work.

A baton / collapsibe ASP is a hard impact weapon, and muscle groups are targeted (arms, legs, etc). Use against the head is a no no unless its a deadly force encounter (targeting of the head intentionally is what I am talking about). If the officer goes to use the baton, and the subject moves, and the impact is in a red zone, then its allowable (although can be subject to review).

When the person continued refusing the officers commands to leave, he escalated the situation, and the officers acted appropriately froim my point of view and based solely on the video and article. Its possible something occured prior to the video recording that could change the perception of the video, but I doubt it.

Just from what I saw the guy could be charged with:
Tresspassing
Assault (Misdemeanor or Felony) on the Security Officer
Disorderly contact
Refusing to obey a lawful command
Resisting arrest (resisting an arrest is as simple as me telling the person, you are under arrest, please place your hands behind your back and the subject refusing to comply. It does not have to be active resistance).
Possibly assault on the 2 officers depending on what exactly occured when they went to the ground.
Peace disturbance (yelling curse words)

This is just my 2 cents on the issue.

As always, burden of proof is on the state to prove the guy committed any wrong doing.
Burden of proof will fall on the officers to justify their actions.

I am pretty sure there will be some type of review / IA investigation since a use of force occured.

The other thing to keep in mind, and people overlook this a lot, is the number of 3rd parties in the area. When an encounter like this occurs on the street, its a bit different since its the officer and the subject.

At the stadium, the escalation of force to control the situation will rise pretty quickly due the the number of 3rd parties in the immediate area. The guy could easily go after the other spectators, creating a possible hostage situation / deadly force encounter.

Anyways.. just my opinion based on the available info.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Not to mention the stadium is still private property and it's no different than a restaurant that has a sign reading; "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." So the stadium was perfectly justified in getting rid of that guy.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Contrast what happened in America with what people in another country did when THEIR cops got abusive.

The sad thing is the guy they beat the snot out of wasnt the cop who was hitting the guy with the stick. He was the guy trying to stop the abusive cop.

edit on 15-4-2011 by Illusionsaregrander because: (no reason given)

oh how the piggies flee when its not overwhelmingly in their favor.

Americans however, we are well programmed to not do that, they've been trying their damnest to make it so we will not stand up for ourselves let alone another human being, to the point its basically illegal to defend yourself.

Long as we get our meds and tv box and net prons, we don't care.

Chant down Babylon.

reply to post by Lysergic


It's not so much that it's 'illegal' to defend yourself. It's what happens to you when you get taken to civil court after the fact. It happens to everyone.

Let me give an example of what I said in the above post.

I said I was a security officer.

A few nights ago at an apartment complex I was working at; I had to break up a fight between a man and a woman. (Not one but actually two fights. One right after the other. Two separate apartments.) Guy was slapping the hell out of his woman. I happen to walk by the apartment and overhear the commotion. Silverware being thrown on the floor, rumbling of furniture being tossed around, followed by screams of "Let go of me! Get your f***ing hands off me!" etc. Right? I knock on the door and it wasn't until then that the screaming got louder and more terror-stricken.

What's sad about the whole thing is I had NO LEGAL GROUNDS to break into the apartment and rescue the woman from getting beat up. Because I have to actually SEE IT with my OWN EYES taking place right there in front of me. Hearing it isn't enough. If I had broken the door down I could either go to jail for unlawful entry of a person's home w/o a warrant etc and all kinds of other trouble INCLUDING being taken to civil court for a variety of reasons. Today ANYBODY can get sued for ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING. Only person that can't get sued is a judge. That's it.

So what did I do after nobody wanted to answer the door. I called police, fearing that woman got stabbed to death or something to that effect. And guess what happened next? The people in the apartment FINALLY answer the door. The guy comes out and leaves. I didn't care where he went just as long as he didn't come back into the apartment (which he didn't thankfully. he went walking off somewhere). The woman comes out and she's all laughing and smirking when the police show up and first thing she says when police question her about the incident was; "I ain't tripping. Wtf? People can't have an argument or what?" So long story short. The woman didn't want to press charges.

So I called the police out there for nothing. Right? Wrong! Because if I didn't and later that woman gets killed by her dude. Guess what? Me AND the security-firm I work for can be taken to civil court and sued because I didn't notify police and I let the dude go and I didn't do enough to stop the woman from getting killed and for so many other circumstances .

It's a double-edged sword.

Not only can you get sued for protecting yourself but also for protecting a third party. It's a messed up world we live in.