Jump to content

Nice job, Phillies fan.


Lori

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 129
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

in my short time here I have found Philly to be a great place, the area around Geno's & Pat's isn't the greatest, but its also a bustling retail environment with unbelievable shops and bistros/cafes...then you have south street....go a few blocks away from that retail environment and it is filled with awesome brownstones. of course the main line is more desirable to families, but living downtown in philly would not be awful. there are bad parts of town everywhere, but I have to give Philly credit...its a great area.

 

Looks like heaven on earth...

 

Where do I sign up?

 

And South Philadelphia?

 

Looks like a bigger Allentown.

 

Edit: BONUS! How about the wild, wild west?

 

People, there's a reason Philthadelphia is pulling a Detroit and dying at an unprecedented pace. As someone once said, it's a rest stop on the trip from NYC to DC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

in my short time here I have found Philly to be a great place, the area around Geno's & Pat's isn't the greatest, but its also a bustling retail environment with unbelievable shops and bistros/cafes...then you have south street....go a few blocks away from that retail environment and it is filled with awesome brownstones. of course the main line is more desirable to families, but living downtown in philly would not be awful. there are bad parts of town everywhere, but I have to give Philly credit...its a great area.

 

Meh, guess it's a matter of taste. I've always preferred NYC. Fortunately, it's almost as close to me as Phuldelfya.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another fan ran on the field tonight, guess what? No taser this time. I wonder why? Because that !@#$ing insane to taser someone for running on the field. Why not just shoot them?

 

Ya, because that's the same thing.... :wallbash:

 

you don't want the taser, don't run. Pretty simple rulese to live by.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ya, because that's the same thing.... :wallbash:

 

you don't want the taser, don't run. Pretty simple rulese to live by.

 

No not really. Where is the precident for "run on the field, get tasered"? Where is that in law as an accepted deterrent or punishment for running on the field?

 

I agree what this kid did was stupid, but requiring him to be tasered, no !@#$ing way.

 

Tasers were brought in to be used as an alternative to "more lethal" methods. Would they have considered shooting this guy, but decided to use the taser instead. Lazy security. This kid will win a lawsuit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No not really. Where is the precident for "run on the field, get tasered"? Where is that in law as an accepted deterrent or punishment for running on the field?

 

I agree what this kid did was stupid, but requiring him to be tasered, no !@#$ing way.

 

Tasers were brought in to be used as an alternative to "more lethal" methods. Would they have considered shooting this guy, but decided to use the taser instead. Lazy security. This kid will win a lawsuit.

 

OK, I see what you're saying in regards to tasing as an alternative to shooting. However, that is not the only time a taser is to be used.

 

It is also to be used when a person is to be detained and is resisting arrest or becomes a "threat" to law enforcement/community.

 

In this case, the kid broke the law by entering the field of play, then resisted arrest by fleeing. Since they couldn't catch him, they tased him.

 

Trust me on this, it is safer for this kid to get tased as opposed to being stopped by physical force.

 

Edit - A taser is NEVER a form of punishment, nor do any laws need to clarify that someone "may" be tased. You run that risk anytime you break the law and become unruly during the arrest process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ya, because that's the same thing.... :D

 

you don't want the taser, don't run. Pretty simple rulese to live by.

 

The bottom line is that if somebody wants to avoid any consequences then stay in the stands. I'm so sick of people defending idiots who get hurt in the course of their brain dead stunts.

 

 

No not really. Where is the precident for "run on the field, get tasered"? Where is that in law as an accepted deterrent or punishment for running on the field?

 

I agree what this kid did was stupid, but requiring him to be tasered, no !@#$ing way.

 

Tasers were brought in to be used as an alternative to "more lethal" methods. Would they have considered shooting this guy, but decided to use the taser instead. Lazy security. This kid will win a lawsuit.

 

There is no precedent for something that hasn't happened before. This may end up being the precedent for future problems. It doesn't need to be in law that it's ok. It just needs to be in law that it's not ok. Where in law does it say it isn't ok?

 

 

OK, I see what you're saying in regards to tasing as an alternative to shooting. However, that is not the only time a taser is to be used.

 

It is also to be used when a person is to be detained and is resisting arrest or becomes a "threat" to law enforcement/community.

 

In this case, the kid broke the law by entering the field of play, then resisted arrest by fleeing. Since they couldn't catch him, they tased him.

 

Trust me on this, it is safer for this kid to get tased as opposed to being stopped by physical force.

 

Edit - A taser is NEVER a form of punishment, nor do any laws need to clarify that someone "may" be tased. You run that risk anytime you break the law and become unruly during the arrest process.

 

What he said! :devil:

 

If the kid had broken his arm while being tackled by security there'd be a whole new bunch of whiners crying about how they shouldn't have tackled him.

 

:wallbash:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really hope this sets a precedent. Go on the field, get tazed. He obviously was not going to stop running until he somehow got physically stopped. Like others had said, could be better for him to be tazed. And, it's certainly better for those doing the chasing. Why should they get hurt trying to tackle him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tasers were brought in to be used as an alternative to "more lethal" methods. Would they have considered shooting this guy, but decided to use the taser instead. Lazy security. This kid will win a lawsuit.

 

Wrong. Simply wrong.

 

The Taser is in no way/shape/form a substitute for deadly force - despite what the media would have you believe. I like how you criticize the security as lazy. What would you have done? Lets just say that you happen to become a police officer and are bestowed the legal authority and responsibility to uphold the law. Now, in order to accomplish this mission your agency gives you certain tools (i.e. a gun, handcuffs, a baton, pepper spray, and a taser). It also gives you the authority to use these tools under certain restrictions. Now, lets say you find yourself chasing a little punk around a baseball field in front of 35,000 fans and you are given the legal authority to a)keep chasing and eventually tackle, b)spray (keep in mind you need to be in front of him to do this, since it works on mucous membranes such as the eyes and nose), c)striking with your baton, or d) tasing the punk. Which would you do?

 

I'll give you a hint - the Taser is the quickest and safest way to end the incident. So, I guess it does make the officer "lazy" after all since he chose to end the incident quickly and efficiently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong. Simply wrong.

 

The Taser is in no way/shape/form a substitute for deadly force - despite what the media would have you believe. I like how you criticize the security as lazy. What would you have done? Lets just say that you happen to become a police officer and are bestowed the legal authority and responsibility to uphold the law. Now, in order to accomplish this mission your agency gives you certain tools (i.e. a gun, handcuffs, a baton, pepper spray, and a taser). It also gives you the authority to use these tools under certain restrictions. Now, lets say you find yourself chasing a little punk around a baseball field in front of 35,000 fans and you are given the legal authority to a)keep chasing and eventually tackle, b)spray (keep in mind you need to be in front of him to do this, since it works on mucous membranes such as the eyes and nose), c)striking with your baton, or d) tasing the punk. Which would you do?

 

I'll give you a hint - the Taser is the quickest and safest way to end the incident. So, I guess it does make the officer "lazy" after all since he chose to end the incident quickly and efficiently.

 

Police forces promote it as such.

 

I would have eaten fewer doughnuts and caught the guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No not really. Where is the precident for "run on the field, get tasered"? Where is that in law as an accepted deterrent or punishment for running on the field?

 

I agree what this kid did was stupid, but requiring him to be tasered, no !@#$ing way.

 

Tasers were brought in to be used as an alternative to "more lethal" methods. Would they have considered shooting this guy, but decided to use the taser instead. Lazy security. This kid will win a lawsuit.

 

Tell that to Monica Seles.

 

If he sues, he will lose and it won't be close. A Philly jury will laugh harder than the fans in the stadium. BTW, the kid's own parents are saying he was an idiot for doing it.

 

If you run on the field, you're lucky to only get tasered. In the future, they should Rodney Harrison trespassers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No not really. Where is the precident for "run on the field, get tasered"? Where is that in law as an accepted deterrent or punishment for running on the field?

 

I agree what this kid did was stupid, but requiring him to be tasered, no !@#$ing way.

 

Tasers were brought in to be used as an alternative to "more lethal" methods. Would they have considered shooting this guy, but decided to use the taser instead. Lazy security. This kid will win a lawsuit.

That will go good on Joan Rivers show"How did you get so rich?" :wallbash:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Police forces promote it as such.

 

I would have eaten fewer doughnuts and caught the guy.

 

And could you live with yourself, as a cop, if the guy got away from you and stabbed one of the players?

 

If you're enough of an idiot to run onto the field, you have to accept the consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fat idiot from last night was charged with defiant trespass, disorderly conduct and narcotics possession. He didn't get tasered because he stopped running when security got to him.

 

But more importantly: Cole Hamels was working on a shutout in the top of the 9th. This pathetic waste of space [

] ran onto the field in the middle of Hamels' windup, and threw him off for good. Consecutive doubles tied the game and Brad Lidge (gasp!) had to come in to preserve the tie. Chooch Ruiz homered in the bottom of the 10th to win it for the Fightins.

 

More importantly: In the first inning, Cole Hamels retired the side in order on 5 pitches. Adam Wainwright followed in the bottom of the inning by getting the Phillies 1-2-3 on 7 pitches. I looked at my clock and saw that it was 7:14. With a 7:05 game start, that's 9 minutes for the first inning (pretty darn fast). At that pace, it would take 77-81 minutes to play a 9 inning game if someone hit a solo shot and made it a 1-0 shutout, assuming that one person moved smartly around the bases.

 

So I had to look it up, 'What's the shortest game in MLB history?': The September 28, 1919 game between the New York Giants and the Philadelphia Phillies took 51 minutes to play with the Giants winning 6-1.

 

Everyone talks about how DiMaggio's 56-game hit streak is the unbreakable record, but I have to think that a 9-inning game played in 51 minutes would be tough to beat.

 

 

So there you go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...