I have thrown up my hands in frustration wondering what one person can do when the masses seem to think what happened at Owen Field with the guy dancing on the field and getting a blind-side, from the back tackle by an OHP trooper is somehow appropriate.

The guy (maybe had one too many?) runs on to the field, he's jumping and dancing during the TV break when Trooper Brian Orr decides the only way to deal with this serious situation is to assault this man with his full bodily force. People cheer. The OHP? They've praised the action. All sorts of accolades are coming his way. I'm just blown away that people now think the answer to minor illegal activity is - violence. Violence, by the way, that could have maimed the man for life.

I've watched this video so many times and have read what so many have said in the various reports at NewsOK and the TV sites, the comments at YouTube, etc. and I have decided that the initial reaction to this is wrong, wrong, wrong. Instead of praise, Trooper Brian Orr should be arrested and charged with assault, police brutality, and unnecessary force in the apprehension of a suspect.

I am disgusted that people really think this is appropriate.

I know he was violating the rules of Owen Field.
He should not have done what he did.
But...
He was charged with a simple misdemeanor - he wasn't fleeing an armed robbery.

Why could Trooper Orr not have simply run to the guy, grabbed him by the shoulder and said, "Come on pardner, I think you've had one too many. You're coming with me." (???) He could have then walked him off the field, handcuffed him, and had him taken to the appropriate facility. I would have supported that as a proportional response. If the guy resisted then Trooper Orr could have thrown around his bulk.

But the violence displayed by Brian Orr was absolutely wrong and indefensible. Instead of the praise and accolades, he should see charges much harsher than those filed against the prankster, dancer, whatever.

I know I will be castigated for daring to offer a different point of view. But I honestly think the potentially very dangerous "tackle" should be called what it truly was - totally unnecessary violence and the response was way out of proportion to what the guy did.

Flame away. But, please, before you write a knee-jerk response. Think about it. Watch the video. Think about the response from Trooper Orr to this "horrible" crime.

Thanks.

See the Channel 4 video that shows the hit from a different angle than the YouTube video. You see just how much force was used in the slam against this "criminal."
http://kfor.com/2013/11/18/watch-trooper-tackles-ou-fan-on-field/
The anchors laughing and joking is, in my opinion, just horrible.

`

http://youtu.be/ZiIH96BMunY

I agree.

I have thrown up my hands in frustration wondering what one person can do when the masses seem to think what happened at Owen Field with the guy dancing on the field and getting a blind-side, from the back tackle by an OHP trooper is somehow appropriate.

The guy (maybe had one too many?) runs on to the field, he's jumping and dancing during the TV break when Trooper Brian Orr decides the only way to deal with this serious situation is to assault this man with his full bodily force. People cheer. The OHP? They've praised the action. All sorts of accolades are coming his way. I'm just blown away that people now think the answer to minor illegal activity is - violence. Violence, by the way, that could have maimed the man for life.

I've watched this video so many times and have read what so many have said in the various reports at NewsOK and the TV sites, the comments at YouTube, etc. and I have decided that the initial reaction to this is wrong, wrong, wrong. Instead of praise, Trooper Brian Orr should be arrested and charged with assault, police brutality, and unnecessary force in the apprehension of a suspect.

I am disgusted that people really think this is appropriate.

I know he was violating the rules of Owen Field.
He should not have done what he did.
But...
He was charged with a simple misdemeanor - he wasn't fleeing an armed robbery.

Why could Trooper Orr not have simply run to the guy, grabbed him by the shoulder and said, "Come on pardner, I think you've had one too many. You're coming with me." (???) He could have then walked him off the field, handcuffed him, and had him taken to the appropriate facility. I would have supported that as a proportional response. If the guy resisted then Trooper Orr could have thrown around his bulk.

But the violence displayed by Brian Orr was absolutely wrong and indefensible. Instead of the praise and accolades, he should see charges much harsher than those filed against the prankster, dancer, whatever.

I know I will be castigated for daring to offer a different point of view. But I honestly think the potentially very dangerous "tackle" should be called what it truly was - totally unnecessary violence and the response was way out of proportion to what the guy did.

Flame away. But, please, before you write a knee-jerk response. Think about it. Watch the video. Think about the response from Trooper Orr to this "horrible" crime.

Thanks.

See the Channel 4 video that shows the hit from a different angle than the YouTube video. You see just how much force was used in the slam against this "criminal."
Trooper makes tackle of the game when taking down unruly OU fan | KFOR.com (http://kfor.com/2013/11/18/watch-trooper-tackles-ou-fan-on-field/)
The anchors laughing and joking is, in my opinion, just horrible.

`

http://youtu.be/ZiIH96BMunY

please continue
to throw up your hands
in frustration.
it makes all
the difference.

yet, be careful
to not do so
in the company
of three or more
others.

(on account of)

so doing could
be confused
with a "Wave".
or at the very least,
a misinterpreted "Like"

by "the masses"
whose opinions
compose
the "liberal"
conundrum

Agreed.

Agreed.

I'm not sure if that's "castigation" or "bullsh!t" . . . =)

I suppose this is one reason I've never been fond of "spectator sports" nor "video games".

This guy isn't the first or last to be tackled during a sporting event. I'm sure there's some kind of law to not disrupt the play on the field.

When a person does stupid things, they usually pay some kind of consequence.

I 100 % percent agree with the op. Very well stated.

Won't flame you...you make a pretty valid argument. Restraint and professionalism should be expected from LEOs. If anything, the trooper also apparently got caught up in the moment and thought he was in pads and a helmet.

All police officers should be regularly tested for steroids. It would significantly reduce this crap.

This guy isn't the first or last to be tackled during a sporting event. I'm sure there's some kind of law to not disrupt the play on the field.

When a person does stupid things, they usually pay some kind of consequence.

So if you litter, do you deserve to get tackled from behind and possibly seriously injured?

I'm sure politely asking him would have worked.

Running onto a field in the middle of a football game? Guy seems reasonable enough.

Would have been awesome if they would have tased him.

All police officers should be regularly tested for steroids. It would significantly reduce this crap.
Not to mention Donuts which might compromise their playing weight.

So, OP (zookeeper) . . . Any thoughts on The Public Debacle of The Caged Lions down in Dallas?
(google it)

Orr shouldn't have tackled him full speed, I agree. But I don't think he should be arrested. That's as overboard as his tackle.

OHP should just tell him to slow his roll next time.

So if you litter, do you deserve to get tackled from behind and possibly seriously injured?

Choose not to litter and you will never be confronted nor blindsided by that potentiality.
No?

Isn't all of this nothing more than a smokescreen to distract us from the more pressing issue of "Bullying in Pro Football"?

And if it turned out the guy had a gun, or a bomb, what conversation would we be having? The OHP trooper looks to be acting in security mode. I think the reaction was less about law enforcement than about security.

Do we even know where this guy came from? For all we know he may have broke loose from another officer. In the end the trooper's tackle was the worst part of his day. The police ticketed him, released him and kicked him out. He didn't go to jail and the fine will like be minimal at best. This guy got exactly what he wanted (a moment in the limelight that will last him a lifetime.) He knew what would happen (security or police would take him down). He likely did it on a dare or "Hey Watch This I'm Drunk moment? "This happens more often than one might think. If you don't believe me, take a look around youtube. You will see all kinds of videos like this one:


http://youtu.be/C2ZndOjDp4w

On a more serious note we do live in a world where this guy could pulled out a gun or a set off bomb and caused some real problems. Instead of talking about the supposed misconduct of a trooper we could be talking about a tragedy. You don't run into an open event like that. Anybody with common sense knows that you keep your seat and stay out of the area of play, the state of performing area just because you can be mistaken for something dangerous.

I agree with ZooKeeper inasmuch as it was an excessive reaction by the trooper and he's very fortunate that commentators (and thus the sheep public) found it humorous and that the exuberant fan was not hurt by the take down.

The only thing more disturbing is a public that excuses all things in the name of 'safety' or 'O' my God, what if he had an Ak-47 or a bomb!'

The trooper will always be able to justify his actions because all ended well and he can appeal to our scared of our own shadow sense of needing someone like this over-steroided officer to protect us from ourselves.

That said, what should happen to the officer? A little finger wagging and a reminder of proper procedure would probably suffice.

From a PR perspective I'm sure OHP prefers this 'tackle at all costs' approach over looking silly chasing the guy around the field had he not cooperated with a simple, "Hey dumb ass, come here."

It's totally and utterly ridiculous to think the trooper acted outside reasonable police policy's that have been vetted by the legal system for many decades. They actually acted with restraint and did nothing wrong. By his own admission the guy arrested was not hurt at all but faces a potential $500 fine

But ridiculously extreme and uninformed opinions that are well off the main stream beat of normal society to often seem to pass for normal around here. This thread has several fine examples.

So if you litter, do you deserve to get tackled from behind and possibly seriously injured?

If you're walking down some side street in Mustang Oklahoma and stick your gum to a utility pole, no it shouldn't get you slapped in jail. Now if you're in the Vatican Museum and stick that Gum on some of Rafael ao Michangelos work, then yes your busted.

Maybe he should sue the OHP ? Maybe Fox should sue the knucklehead for disrupting their broadcast ?

The OP is a classic example of the pot calling the kettle black. In his outrage at the "excessive force" used by the OHP trooper, his solution for tackling the alleged overexuberance of this LEO is even more ridiculously excessive and unreasonable.

I am someone who believes that many LEOs and law enforcement organizations have become overaggressive and grossly overreaching in their exercise of authority at the expense of constitutional freedoms and protections. However, in this case, the trooper's reaction to the idiot's action was, in my mind, within reason and arguably justified.

It's totally and utterly ridiculous to think the trooper acted outside reasonable police policy's that have been vetted by the legal system for many decades. They actually acted with restraint and did nothing wrong. By his own admission the guy arrested was not hurt at all but faces a potential $500 fine

But ridiculously extreme and uninformed opinions that are well off the main stream beat of normal society to often seem to pass for normal around here. This thread has several fine examples.

Yet, you've cited no actual policy.

"Acted with restraint" - As-in they didn't shoot him? Exactly what restraint was used? The citizen wasn't hurt out of shear luck and nothing more.

Please, do 'inform us' beyond ranting yourself.

Do I think the officer's actions should get him in any 'real' trouble? No. Do I think he handled the situation correctly? No.

It was about 6 years ago or so when the student from Colorado Springs tried to enter the stadium with a bomb in his backpack. We all know what happened later that evening during the game. I don't think they (security) have this type of no nonsense behavior without reason.

Was he tackled a little hard ?, yep. Would he have been if he'd stayed in the stands ? Nope.

Yet, you've cited no actual policy.

"Acted with restraint" - As-in they didn't shoot him? Exactly what restraint was used? The citizen wasn't hurt out of shear luck and nothing more.

Please, do 'inform us' beyond ranting yourself.

Do I think the officer's actions should get him in any 'real' trouble? No. Do I think he handled the situation correctly? No.
Here is a better idea......Do your own research and then find out just how wrong you really are!

What's the law enforcement equivalent of the Butkus Award?
Maybe Brian Bosworth could come out of retirement to present it to Trooper Orr.

The thing being overlooked here is that stadium incidents like this - where some joker runs on the field, drunk or not - are fairly routine, and I'd bet dollars to donuts that there are probably fairly standardized security procedures in place for them. And I think it is very likely the presumption is that such individuals are, in fact, drunk, high, or some combination of both, and thus you cannot make assumptions about their physical or mental state. To presume they should have just said, "Come here, buddy" infers a coherent, rational state. I don't think you can make that assumption. Absent that, filled with a stadium of 85K people they'll evacuate for the sake of a lightning bolt six miles away, taking down a goon like this is entirely acceptable. The first, most important option is to get the offender neutralized.

I think if you saw the same or similar circumstances in any other major stadium venue, you'd have seen very nearly the same response.

Police brutality? Give me a physical break. If the guy was really stone-cold sober, he had to know something like that was in the offing. If he were under some sort of influence, he had to be taken out.

Also, the clown being tackled was not a little man.... this might have had an impact on the troopers action. If it'd been some 110 pound woman doing a little dance, i'm sure it'd been handled in a different manner.

Also, the clown being tackled was not a little man.... this might have had an impact on the troopers action. If it'd been some 110 pound woman doing a little dance, i'm sure it'd been handled in a different manner.

That point is a very good point and I think its probably why the trooper launched him self. He wasn't running very fast.

The hit looked worse than it really was only because the hit was delivered when the guy was jumping up in the air and was off his feet.. If you actually ever played competitive tackle football as I have you may have experienced this. It hurts worse if your feet are planted in the ground.

It was about 6 years ago or so when the student from Colorado Springs tried to enter the stadium with a bomb in his backpack. We all know what happened later that evening during the game. I don't think they (security) have this type of no nonsense behavior without reason.

Was he tackled a little hard ?, yep. Would he have been if he'd stayed in the stands ? Nope.

Good God.

No thanks if you're asking that we all live in a world where it's okay for law enforcement to presume you're wearing a bomb. Rationally, such an assumption is idiotic. If he wanted to kill the most people, why would he have run out to the emptiest part of the stadium (the field)... and man, way to stay in character! Jumping up and down making OU signs with your hands? THE PERFECT TRAP! In such a world, deadly force would almost always be permissible to protect public and officer safety.

There's no excuse for what Orr did. Maybe he's not criminally liable, but if there were any injuries to the young man, Orr ought to be civilly liable, and maybe the University as well. There's no call for that.

Police officers are expected to observe a continuum of force where verbal commands come first unless there's some reasonable reason why verbal commands might endanger public and officer safety. Here, I don't reasonably see any excuse why verbal commands couldn't have worked. Some little men like to feel all powerful when they see someone suffer dire consequences for stepping outside the bounds of decency and will cheer something like this on, but at the end of the day, police officers are expected to observe certain behavioral standards and I don't think that happened here.

Don't put yourself in a situation where you might be "blindsided" and you wont be. I can not believe people actually think the Trooper was in the wrong, I'm actually disgusted by it. These people, my wife included, risk their lives every day dealing with the scum of the earth so you do have to. The guy came out of the stands from my section, he didn't look wasted, he looked like a dumb ass trying to get some attention. Very disappointed you think an officer enforcing the law should be charged for enforcing the law whatever means that are necessary to do so. You think if he would have just walked up tapped him on the shoulder and asked him to leave the guy would have? Yeah right, an officer must control the situation immediately under any circumstance as you don't know anything about that person or what they are thinking or going to do. Detain him and figure out the rest after they are restrained. Some people literally disgust me, even thinking he should be charged for assault makes me sick. Don't break the law and you wont get tackled!!!!!!!

Lawsuit in 3 . . . 2 . . . 1

Good God.

No thanks if you're asking that we all live in a world where it's okay for law enforcement to presume you're wearing a bomb. Rationally, such an assumption is idiotic. If he wanted to kill the most people, why would he have run out to the emptiest part of the stadium (the field)... and man, way to stay in character! Jumping up and down making OU signs with your hands? THE PERFECT TRAP! In such a world, deadly force would almost always be permissible to protect public and officer safety.

There's no excuse for what Orr did. Maybe he's not criminally liable, but if there were any injuries to the young man, Orr ought to be civilly liable, and maybe the University as well. There's no call for that.

Police officers are expected to observe a continuum of force where verbal commands come first unless there's some reasonable reason why verbal commands might endanger public and officer safety. Here, I don't reasonably see any excuse why verbal commands couldn't have worked. Some little men like to feel all powerful when they see someone suffer dire consequences for stepping outside the bounds of decency and will cheer something like this on, but at the end of the day, police officers are expected to observe certain behavioral standards and I don't think that happened here.
It was loud and it appeared that he was given verbal commands by other officers. Which he did not respond to.

As an attorney you should know that thousand if not more court cases have made rulings that give the trooper the power to do exactly what he did. The OHP policies are reviewed by appropriate officials. The OHP said that it trooper acted appropriately.
Its deranged to even think that this could have been handled any better...
There is literately nothing here for reasonable people to complain about!

Ok. So let's assume he had a bomb. Tackling him could potentially set off the bomb. Also, as pointed out, someone with a bomb isn't going to detonate one in the least populated area of the stadium. That would be like a terrorist setting off a bomb in an open field next to a runway. Might damage a few taxiway lights and scare a few birds.

If the guy was wearing a hoodie, backpack, and had a cell phone in his hand. A reasonable assumption would be he is absolutely up to no good.

A fat ass, drunk, running onto the field is pretty much zero threat to anybody.

Ok. So let's assume he had a bomb. Tackling him could potentially set off the bomb. Also, as pointed out, someone with a bomb isn't going to detonate one in the least populated area of the stadium. That would be like a terrorist setting off a bomb in an open field next to a runway. Might damage a few taxiway lights and scare a few birds.

If the guy was wearing a hoodie, backpack, and had a cell phone in his hand. A reasonable assumption would be he is absolutely up to no good.

A fat ass, drunk, running onto the field is pretty much zero threat to anybody.

As the police moved in on him they could tell he didn't have a bomb of any great size. But the police still must assume that a guy like this could have a weapon, like a gun tucked away in his pants. Its in their training and they have been told to do so by higher authority.

By letting the Trooper tackle him from behind it reduced the possibility of the guy being able to produce a weapon... They must reduce the odds of violence by doing exactly what they did. Gun fire by anyone inside the stadium puts a great number of people at risk. They have a greater right to stay safe than the nut job on the field.

What shocking is how so few people here seem to understand even basic common sense.

^

http://gyazo.com/10fc8aaf0a5986b3440d05e6c507efc5.png

Yes, looks like he is about to draw a gun and open fire on everybody. while he flails his arms up in the air and is chanting Boomer Sooner. Get a grip.

^

http://gyazo.com/10fc8aaf0a5986b3440d05e6c507efc5.png

Yes, looks like he is about to draw a gun and open fire on everybody. while he flails his arms up in the air and is chanting Boomer Sooner. Get a grip.
Your not living in a world of reality.... If he had a gun he probably wasn't going to pull it out until he saw the police moving in on him.., That's why the other officers did not rush him...and also to give the trooper a chance to tackle him...

Unlike some others, I was at the game and watched this though my binoculars and it was on my end of the stadium.

So, what would excessive force in this situation be? If the ultimate goal is to diffuse the situation, what is the line that you would define as being excessive force?

Clips here are the first I've seen of it. I watched a couple of clips a few times. Thought I'd be outraged. Nope.

Some folks disagree, including folks whose opinions I frequently respect. Happens from time to time.

Had the trooper driven through the man straight on into the ground, I might feel differently about it.

This was not that, and as much as I am not a fan of instant replay, after further review, the ruling on the field is upheld.

So, what would excessive force in this situation be? If the ultimate goal is to diffuse the situation, what is the line that you would define as being excessive force?
I will be very happy to live under the rule of law and not under mob rule like so many here seem to want.
I will live with whatever the many courts cases have ruled as excessive force and where that line is.
Very clearly excessive force did not happen in this case.

What if the guy had been holding a Bible in his hands? All of the conservatives in the state would have been OUTRAGED.

It was loud and it appeared that he was given verbal commands by other officers. Which he did not respond to.

As an attorney you should know that thousand if not more court cases have made rulings that give the trooper the power to do exactly what he did. The OHP policies are reviewed by appropriate officials. The OHP said that it trooper acted appropriately.
Its deranged to even think that this could have been handled any better...
There is literately nothing here for reasonable people to complain about!

This is the same OHP who has recently blessed the behavior of one Trooper Martin, who on numerous occasions has used excessive force.

OHP Trooper Accused Of Excessive Force - FOX23 News (http://www.fox23.com/news/local/story/OHP-Trooper-Accused-Of-Excessive-Force/WSyg3cNKw06J3jJYvwookg.cspx)

Oklahoma Highway Patrol Trooper Daniel Martin reinstated after investigation of excessive force complaint. Martin previously scuffled with paramedic. Video released of most recent incident. | STATter911.com (http://statter911.com/2009/11/15/oklahoma-highway-patrol-trooper-daniel-martin-reinstated-after-investigation-of-excessive-force-complaint-martin-previously-scuffled-with-paramedic-video-released-of-most-recent-incident/)

Sorry, but I don't find the OHP's finding that the level of force being appropriate to be anything more than CYA on their part.

What if the guy had been holding a Bible in his hands? All of the conservatives in the state would have been OUTRAGED.

Nice straw man.

I'm amazed at all the Monday morning QBs. If the officer had pulled a gun and shot the guy, I'd be right with you. If the goal is to restrain, constrain, and restrict the ability of the guy to harm anyone in the quickest amount of time possible, with the least amount of damage, I'd say mission accomplished. Poor drunk loser has some bruises. Boo-hoo.

So, what would excessive force in this situation be? If the ultimate goal is to diffuse the situation, what is the line that you would define as being excessive force?

Oh . . . I dunno . . . Maybe something along these lines?

SW1ZDIXiuS4

Interesting discussion, but it would be more valuable with the perspective of law enforcement leadership which establishes criteria for circumstances such as this. My $0.02:

It isn't "excessive force" because this has been a typical response for years, giving enough time for a lawsuit to wend its way through the courts to a verdict against the law enforcement agency and result in a policy change. That hasn't happened to my knowledge. Nor are athletes being charged or sued when they do this James Harrison Sacks Browns Fan - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fC3xNSiRTDc) , or team employees when they do this Drunk Red Sox fan gets absolutely leveled, 5/2/11 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGERG5WoAY4)

I believe that the response is appropriate to the initial action: People run onto an athletic field in front of thousands of spectators for the disruptive shock value and attention, knowing that they are guaranteed to be apprehended. Being forcibly and publicly taken out by a LEO, athlete or employee adds a little sting and humiliation to the conclusion of this kind of stunt, and dissuades others.

What if the guy had been holding a Bible in his hands? All of the conservatives in the state would have been OUTRAGED.

Or, god forbid, a KORAN????? (or a cartoon of Mohammed?)

Frankly, in the future, I hope they choose to use T.A.S.E.R. s . . .
It would probably provide more entertainment value.

It was loud and it appeared that he was given verbal commands by other officers.

Oh, you could tell that from the video, could you?


As an attorney you should know that thousand if not more court cases have made rulings that give the trooper the power to do exactly what he did.

And also thousands where the police officer ended up with a judgment against him and his employer for a civil rights violation or for battery.


The OHP policies are reviewed by appropriate officials. The OHP said that it trooper acted appropriately.

That's almost LOL funny considering the sort of crap OHP has blessed in the past. Here's a little update on the Daniel Martin story as it's been moving through the courts:

Appellate court rules trooper excessive force lawsuit should move forward | News OK (http://newsok.com/lawsuit-allowed-to-proceed/article/3575512)

It doesn't appear the 10th Circuit necessarily agrees with the OHP's belief system regarding excessive force.

Nice straw man.

I'm amazed at all the Monday morning QBs. If the officer had pulled a gun and shot the guy, I'd be right with you. If the goal is to restrain, constrain, and restrict the ability of the guy to harm anyone in the quickest amount of time possible, with the least amount of damage, I'd say mission accomplished. Poor drunk loser has some bruises. Boo-hoo.

What if the guy had received a concussion, a broken bone, or possibly some other more serious injury as a result of the officer's excessive use of force for the situation?

The officer saw this as a chance to remember his time as a football player and make a tackle on the big stage once again. Immature move by both the fan and the officer.

Scenarios:

1) if he were detonating a bomb, he would have had bulkier clothes. He would have stayed in the stands or near an exit.

2) if he were planning on shooting people, he would have done it in the stands. Not 50 yards away from everyone.

3) if he were planning on committing suicide, he would have ran out on to the middle of the field waving a gun so the officers would shoot him right away, or he would have done it very quickly himself.

In all of those situations the officers would be reactionary and not proactive. If you are planning on committing harm, you don't attract attention to yourself.

There is no justifiable reason to tackle him at the force they did. There is zero reason for that given the circumstances.

Interesting discussion, but it would be more valuable with the perspective of law enforcement leadership which establishes criteria for circumstances such as this. My $0.02:

It isn't "excessive force" because this has been a typical response for years, giving enough time for a lawsuit to wend its way through the courts to a verdict against the law enforcement agency and result in a policy change. That hasn't happened to my knowledge. Nor are athletes being charged or sued when they do this James Harrison Sacks Browns Fan - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fC3xNSiRTDc) , or team employees when they do this Drunk Red Sox fan gets absolutely leveled, 5/2/11 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGERG5WoAY4)

I believe that the response is appropriate to the initial action: People run onto an athletic field in front of thousands of spectators for the disruptive shock value and attention, knowing that they are guaranteed to be apprehended. Being forcibly and publicly taken out by a LEO, athlete or employee adds a little sting and humiliation to the conclusion of this kind of stunt, and dissuades others.

Oh I know.. we'd probably have fewer speeders if police officers were allowed to taser all speeders, just 'cuz. The whole "pour encourager les autres" motif doesn't jibe with the American criminal justice model. You get due process. The gentleman running out onto the field will get his due process--an opportunity for a trial and then some form of punishment. Being forcibly apprehended is never part of the punishment. It should only happen if the arrestee resists.

I totally agree with the original post.

If you watch the video, again, you will see that one of the officials (perhaps the Back Judge?) fingered the clown as being in violation of the rules thereby paving the way for the Trooper to respond in an efficient and effective manner.

This is worth watching

Oklahoma football: Sterling Shepard appears ready to go | News OK (http://newsok.com/sterling-shepard-appears-ready-to-go/article/3906461)

I couldn't hear in the video I saw, but I was wondering if the trooper had already yelled at the guy to stop, but it didn't get picked up on the audio. And when he didn't stop, he got tackled.

Oh, you could tell that from the video, could you?



And also thousands where the police officer ended up with a judgment against him and his employer for a civil rights violation or for battery.



That's almost LOL funny considering the sort of crap OHP has blessed in the past. Here's a little update on the Daniel Martin story as it's been moving through the courts:

Appellate court rules trooper excessive force lawsuit should move forward | News OK (http://newsok.com/lawsuit-allowed-to-proceed/article/3575512)

It doesn't appear the 10th Circuit necessarily agrees with the OHP's belief system regarding excessive force.
As I already said I was at the game and had a clear view of this though my binoculars. IT WAS LOUD.

Many if not all courts of law would disagree with you on this case and you know it.

You people are retarded.

Hit too high, didn't wrap him up, and the personal foul with the hand on the neck?

THAT WAS A TERRIBLE TACKLE AND BAD FOOTBALLING! No wonder he's a government worker.

Don't escalate otherwise somebody will call for parking offenders to be hung, drawn and quartered. I ain't that guy.

Reading the stories of seven "fans" makes it clear that they are absolute idiots doing this for the attention, none of which were surprised by their treatment or the outcome: Tinder Dates, Drake Retweets, and Sex Offenses: Seven Streakers Share Their*Stories | Extra Mustard - SI.com (http://extramustard.si.com/2013/11/19/tinder-dates-drake-retweets-and-sex-offenses-seven-streakers-share-their-stories/?eref=sihp)

Yeah, NO ONE predicted this would be your opinion. Such a shill man.

Then that makes you a complete shill for an unlawful act and against what society has labeled normal behavior....
But as so often is the case you are completely on the wrong side of an issue. But normal people are use to this when its coming from you.

Many if not all courts of law would disagree with you on this case and you know it.

Well now, that's a different argument. First you were saying you accepted OHP's finding that it wasn't excessive force. Now you're postulating that all courts of law would agree with you.

Under all the case law I've seen, this case at least gets to trial, which means a jury would decide it, not as you say, "courts of law."

There are several factors to consider: The severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers and others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight. We also consider whether an officer's own “reckless or deliberate conduct” in connection with the arrest contributed to the need to use the force employed. (citations omitted)

First, let's look at the severity of the crime. This young man was charged with misdemeanor disturbing the peace--a petty municipal offense, the lowest of the low. The expects officers to temper the force they use according to the crime being committed. Next, we turn to whether he was actively resisting arrest. In the video , I see other officers and staff approaching as Orr takes the young man to the ground. The field rusher wasn't running away or resisting in any way at that time. From the video, I saw Orr, unlike ALL of the other officers on the scene be the only one to decide that a brute force tackle was the best way to handle this situation. This is a case I'd feel pretty good taking to trial if I did that sort of work.

For further reading, see Fogerty v. Gallegos, 523 F.3d 1147 United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

I realize you were watching a football game where big men in pads run into each other at very high rates of speed and force and this wasn't much different from what you were there to see for your entertainment. This, however, was not for your entertainment. Yes, we're all familiar with that little feeling of glee we experienced back in grade school when we saw the troublemaker sent to the principle's office or paddled. It's very human to feel better-than and happy when someone else is being punished for what you perceive as misconduct. That doesn't mean the law agrees with you and it doesn't make anything common sense.

This confuses me so much. I swear, I don't recognize this country sometimes.
You never knew it then. Not even close. But that’s what happens when a person keeps operating out on the edge of life and keeps telling then self that they are so smart that they always know better..

You never knew it then. Not even close. But that’s what happens when a person keeps operating out on the edge of life and keeps telling then self that they are so smart that they always know better..

Physician, heal thy self.

Well now, that's a different argument. First you were saying you accepted OHP's finding that it wasn't excessive force. Now you're postulating that all courts of law would agree with you.

Under all the case law I've seen, this case at least gets to trial, which means a jury would decide it, not as you say, "courts of law."

There are several factors to consider: The severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers and others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight. We also consider whether an officer's own “reckless or deliberate conduct” in connection with the arrest contributed to the need to use the force employed. (citations omitted)

First, let's look at the severity of the crime. This young man was charged with misdemeanor disturbing the peace--a petty municipal offense, the lowest of the low. The expects officers to temper the force they use according to the crime being committed. Next, we turn to whether he was actively resisting arrest. In the video , I see other officers and staff approaching as Orr takes the young man to the ground. The field rusher wasn't running away or resisting in any way at that time. From the video, I saw Orr, unlike ALL of the other officers on the scene be the only one to decide that a brute force tackle was the best way to handle this situation. This is a case I'd feel pretty good taking to trial if I did that sort of work.

For further reading, see Fogerty v. Gallegos, 523 F.3d 1147 United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Then go fight this case and see how far you get....
You have about 80,000 live eye witness accounts or so.
The vast majority of these people including several judges would would laugh you out of the court room so fast that you wouldn’t get far... and I know you know this.