Well, why not use a gun next time? Hell, dude broke the rules, there should be consequences!
By your line of thinking the would be justified at shooting at your should you speed. That... makes no sense.
"all_about_da_packers" wrote:
What part of ... its a taser, not a bullet do you fail to understand? By saying that, I'm saying, a bullet would be too much, but a taser is not.
You're right, it makes no sense and I appreciate you never trying to predict my line of thinking with asinine perceptions.
But what if someone decides that the consequence IS a bullet? That's the point. Where is the line drawn and who draws it? And how much flexibility are security personnel to be given over how flexible it is?
"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:
If the consequence WAS a bullet, that's too far. I think a tase fits the 'crime' of running onto the field if they are unable to apprehend the individual with the guards.
I'll try to paint this picture a little more clear for those who feel the need to take one comment and make it completely different than it's intended.
IF someone runs onto the field I feel they should first try to apprehend the person with manpower. If that fails, then subdue the individual with a taser. I would cautiously say a bullet would never suffice, but then again, if they are armed, a bullet might have to be the means of apprehension.
Was a taser out of line here? They tried to capture him with the guards, they failed. So they used the taser. I think that was fine.