Umpire tired of lame Camden Yards Security tackles shirtless drunk young male fan.

[BobbyWoontz]

I always thought they circled people to try and not cause any kind of show. Watching someone get knocked out could be entertaining and some of these people doing this crap just want to put on a show.

Ah, the Romans!

[BobbyWoontz]

Fans would get more excited over the prospect of seeing someone get tased then they would over watching them run around like an idiot!

Adam sez he would enjoy it!

[Tony-OH]

FWIW - Tasing can kill a person. I doubt that something MLB wants to take a chance with.

Screw that. If you are dumb enough idiot that you feel a need to run onto the field, you get what you get. Maybe knowing you are going to be tased will make these idiots think twice. I applaud Kellogg and I'm ashamed of the slow reacting security at Camden Yards. It's becoming an epidemic because of the slow response and small consequences.

[Tony-OH]

First, you're getting political. Secondly, we're currently at a point where law enforcement uses an unprecedented level of force against the people on a daily basis so what you're saying has no place in reality. Derp, some kid spray painted a wall, let's bust into his house at 7am with the SWAT team, shoot the family dogs, tell the mom and dad to shut the f up and hail his butt off to jail!

What a joke. You have any proof of that statement? The reason we see it more is because everyone is carrying around a video camera on their phone. I'm not saying brutality doesn't exist, but to claim there is some kind of epidemic of it is a ludicrous statement. Consequences are the main thing that keeps people from doing stuff they should be doing. Without them, you get what we have now at Camden Yards.

[El Gordo]

Screw that. If you are dumb enough idiot that you feel a need to run onto the field, you get what you get. Maybe knowing you are going to be tased will make these idiots think twice. I applaud Kellogg and I'm ashamed of the slow reacting security at Camden Yards. It's becoming an epidemic because of the slow response and small consequences.

Why not just have a sniper take them out(rubber bullets?)? That would be even cheaper than my dog idea. If you get what you get.

[Satyr3206]

Why not just have a sniper take them out(rubber bullets?)? That would be even cheaper than my dog idea. If you get what you get.

Pass out bean bag guns to fans in the front row. Whoever hits him gets free season tickets.

[CA-ORIOLE]

What a joke. You have any proof of that statement? The reason we see it more is because everyone is carrying around a video camera on their phone. I'm not saying brutality doesn't exist, but to claim there is some kind of epidemic of it is a ludicrous statement. Consequences are the main thing that keeps people from doing stuff they should be doing. Without them, you get what we have now at Camden Yards.

I don't know about the numbers, but I think he may be right about police taser usage being up. It's probably deemed less violent than a physical confrontation or as a means to preclude potentially more violence like baton usage or shooting etc. Certainly the lawsuits are an issue (at least out here in CA), for stuff like this. I see them in the news quite frequently. A number of people have been seriously hurt and/or killed by taser use. Falling down and having a head injury is a farly common one. We have one here locally where a woman (drunk driver) was blinded when the explosive charge for the taser detonated in here eyes. The cost to the city/state can become a pretty huge burden. I'm just stating that as the reality of our times. Putting the testosterone aside, at some point there's a risk/cost management decision here. I get your point, but I'm not sure that tasering somebody as SOP, when they're not really dangerous is a very good plan for a number of reasons. They could probably mitigate a lot of this with some better planning/procedures, like additional barriers, more agressive monitoring, more aggressive alcohol restrictions/monitoring, and additonal security etc. I'm not sure about the legal actions available, but pursuing more punitive measures would obviously help.

[waroriole]

Thanks. That clears it up for me. I appreciate the detailed lesson you just provided me.

How does it not? By putting it in print (particularly on a ticket which is physically in the hand of the buyer) it can be proven that the buyer had the material and was aware that by running on the field the person running would assume all liability for any injury that may befall on him/her whether caused by falling, being tackled, tasing or any other means.

I am not a lawyer so I don't know for sure, but if this is an incorrect assumption on my part, I would appreciate some additional information and detail on why rather than 'no it doesn't.'

Maybe if you could ask without being a douche, I wouldn't mind explaining. Since you can't, go look it up yourself.

[Gofannon]

I looked back on the thread after the Opening Day visit from Batman, and there were multiple people who found this sort of thing to be harmless fun.

Now that it's happened at 4 of our 10 home games and the home plate umpire is having to tackle people who slide into home, is it still funny? I'm just wondering.

[incubus]

What would be your justification for using that level of force against a drunken idiot?

Just imagine the amount of "occupyers" that would invade the first stadium that used a level of force that gave the appearance of not treating everyone with complete dignity and like the individual was on a pedastal because they committed a crime.

I wish there was a more aggressive approach BCPD could take to stop these morons; but they handle it correctly.

It's private property they would have no right to "Occupy" any stadium.

[Nigel Tufnel]

Sure. Do a quick search on the use of SWAT teams in the last 10 years and the militarization of our police forces. There you go. I'm not anti-police in any way. There are 5 cops in my family alone. It's more the mindset and the tactics that are being used that is the problem, not the cops themselves.

Oh, but I think the umpire tackling the guy was awesome.

You know, I think it's probably just the opposite - cops are much less violent these days. That's generally a good thing but as byproduct, the drunk idiots don't have anything to be afraid of. I mean, 100+ years ago, the cops would have gang tackled opening day Batman and beat him senseless with billy clubs right on the field. I'm definitely not saying that's the right way to go about things, but it would certainly be a deterrant to future drunks.

[24fps]

I looked back on the thread after the Opening Day visit from Batman, and there were multiple people who found this sort of thing to be harmless fun.

Now that it's happened at 4 of our 10 home games and the home plate umpire is having to tackle people who slide into home, is it still funny? I'm just wondering.

One guy doing it is harmless. Morganna doing it is harmless and fun. 4 drunks in 4 weeks is neither harmless nor fun, it's tedious and annoying but still not bad enough to warrant dogs or tasers regardless of how satisfying it is to think along those lines. These people may be committing a crime, but they have more in common with mosquitos than hardened criminals.

[NJOsFan]

I don't know about the numbers, but I think he may be right about police taser usage being up. It's probably deemed less violent than a physical confrontation or as a means to preclude potentially more violence like baton usage or shooting etc. Certainly the lawsuits are an issue (at least out here in CA), for stuff like this. I see them in the news quite frequently. A number of people have been seriously hurt and/or killed by taser use. Falling down and having a head injury is a farly common one. We have one here locally where a woman (drunk driver) was blinded when the explosive charge for the taser detonated in here eyes. The cost to the city/state can become a pretty huge burden. I'm just stating that as the reality of our times. Putting the testosterone aside, at some point there's a risk/cost management decision here. I get your point, but I'm not sure that tasering somebody as SOP, when they're not really dangerous is a very good plan for a number of reasons. They could probably mitigate a lot of this with some better planning/procedures, like additional barriers, more agressive monitoring, more aggressive alcohol restrictions/monitoring, and additonal security etc. I'm not sure about the legal actions available, but pursuing more punitive measures would obviously help.

I'd have to bet that the number of Taser usage going up has to coincide with more and more of them being deployed into the field.

[SammyBirdland]

These people may be committing a crime, but they have more in common with mosquitos than hardened criminals.

Until one of them knifes somebody on the field. It only needs to happen once. Then we will get our dogs and tasers.

[CA-ORIOLE]

I'd have to bet that the number of Taser usage going up has to coincide with more and more of them being deployed into the field.

.................Absoloutely.