Trooper Brian Orr (OU Tackle Trooper) Should Be Arrested

[hoya]

Remember back in 2005 when a guy with a bomb attempted (according to several witnesses) to enter the OU stadium but was turned away? He ended up blowing himself up 100 yards from the stadium. So when this guy (at the Iowa State game) runs onto the field, how does anyone know what he's up to? What if he were about to pull a firearm out and began shooting at random into the stands? What if he had a bomb strapped to his body? I guess the liberals would prefer that he kill a few people first to see what he was up to.

How would a police officer tackling him have prevented him from detonating a bomb? What if the bomb was rigged to go off on impact?

You know, cops have been shot when they approach vehicles they have pulled over for speeding. Should they just open fire on every car they pull over?

[catch22]

Remember back in 2005 when a guy with a bomb attempted (according to several witnesses) to enter the OU stadium but was turned away? He ended up blowing himself up 100 yards from the stadium. So when this guy (at the Iowa State game) runs onto the field, how does anyone know what he's up to? What if he were about to pull a firearm out and began shooting at random into the stands? What if he had a bomb strapped to his body? I guess the liberals would prefer that he kill a few people first to see what he was up to.

I ran through scenarios on a previous post:

Scenario 1, the offender has a bomb with the intention of detonating it to cause human harm:

Running onto the middle of the field would place the bomb in a location that would cause almost zero harm except for himself and anyone close enough that chased him.
The bomb person would place the bomb or himself in a crowded entry way or exit. Or in the stands themselves. Assuming he had a bomb, the officer made a dumb decision by tackling him.

Scenario 2, the offender wanted to shoot a gun and kill people:
Running into the middle of the field would reduce his likelihood of killing anyone. As he would now be shooting from 50 yards away and not point blank. Unless he had a machine gun (hard to conceal that and it's obvious he didn't have that) he would be unsuccessful. Also, he would be shot by officers if he was waving a gun.

Scenario 3, he wanted to commit suicide.
He would have waved a gun and ran on the middle of the field. He would be shot down.

A fat jackass running onto the middle of the field doesn't warrant the tackle that he received. let's quit with this nonsense about him possible having a bomb or a gun, because if he did the officer wouldn't run into the middle of the field to tackling him and find out he had a bomb. It was quite clear what the situation was, and the officer did not act accordingly.

[positano]

A thought that I don't think has been considered (forgive me if it has been mentioned in a prior post):

Groups interested in causing harm are well known for researching and probing security responses. It would be a material consideration for someone considering a similar act, albeit with more sinister motives, to know how quickly and affirmatively law enforcement / security responded. The point being that any security protocol has to take more than the individual act into consideration.

Incidentally, it would be interesting to see the factual and legal arguments to the element of disturbing the "peace". 80,000 screaming fans sets an interesting perspective of "peace". It isn't a perfect resolution, but I wouldn't be surprised to see the citation resolved by agreement as a trespass.

In the interest of transparency, I'm not concerned about the use of force. Could it have been handled with less? Probably. But at the end of the day, idiot runs on field, officer tackles him, and issues citation. I'm okay with it. I haven't read OHP's use of force policy in awhile, but I expect he was well within the limits of their policy.

[hoya]

A thought that I don't think has been considered (forgive me if it has been mentioned in a prior post):

Groups interested in causing harm are well known for researching and probing security responses. It would be a material consideration for someone considering a similar act, albeit with more sinister motives, to know how quickly and affirmatively law enforcement / security responded. The point being that any security protocol has to take more than the individual act into consideration.

Incidentally, it would be interesting to see the factual and legal arguments to the element of disturbing the "peace". 80,000 screaming fans sets an interesting perspective of "peace". It isn't a perfect resolution, but I wouldn't be surprised to see the citation resolved by agreement as a trespass.

In the interest of transparency, I'm not concerned about the use of force. Could it have been handled with less? Probably. But at the end of the day, idiot runs on field, officer tackles him, and issues citation. I'm okay with it. I haven't read OHP's use of force policy in awhile, but I expect he was well within the limits of their policy.

Because it is somehow important that Al Quaeda know whether their guy is gonna be tackled and handcuffed rather than merely grabbed and handcuffed? In what way, specifically, does the tackle prevent these sinister organizations from probing our security responses?

I can just imagine some terrorist leader sitting in a cave saying "Mother ****er, there go our plans to attack the US. Tell Hajib to get his ass in here. He said no one at Owen Field could tackle worth a damn. Guess we're gonna have to go bomb France now."

[Of Sound Mind]

I'm starting to think that either hoyasooner is the guy that was tackled at the game or someone who's had one or more unpleasant interactions with a trooper in the past.

[RadicalModerate]

My theory is that the guy who ran onto the field didn't ever get spanked as a child and therefore lacks the self-control engendered by "fear" of negative reinforcement for stupid actions. Ergo: It's the guy's parents fault. The trooper was just giving him a little taste of what he was deprived of as a child.

[jerrywall]

I'm starting to think that either hoyasooner is the guy that was tackled at the game or someone who's had one or more unpleasant interactions with a trooper in the past.

Seriously. Folks obviously have some problem they're working out.

Fan's getting tacked when trying to run on the field isn't anything new. I did a quick search and found dozens of videos and news stories from various sporting events. And guess what? Each time a fan ran on the field they get taken down hard. Gee. Yet we don't have stories of law suits after the fact.

If I wave a gun in front of a policeman, I know what's going to happen. If I try to hop the fence at the white house, I know what's going to happen. And if I attempt to run onto the field in a sporting event, I know what's going to happen.

Geeze.

[positano]

Because it is somehow important that Al Quaeda know whether their guy is gonna be tackled and handcuffed rather than merely grabbed and handcuffed? In what way, specifically, does the tackle prevent these sinister organizations from probing our security responses?"

The point was that several posters were debating whether this particular guy could have had some dangerous intentions, and I was pointing out that there are broader implications to consider than what security could have / should have done with this one person. And specifically, yes, there are groups that would most definitely be deterred by an aggressive law enforcement response as opposed to a more passive response. Whether that response is a tackle, reasonable minds obviously differ.

[hoya]

I'm starting to think that either hoyasooner is the guy that was tackled at the game or someone who's had one or more unpleasant interactions with a trooper in the past.

I could just as easily accuse you of being a roided up cop who likes to beat up people smaller than him.

[hoya]

The point was that several posters were debating whether this particular guy could have had some dangerous intentions, and I was pointing out that there are broader implications to consider than what security could have / should have done with this one person. And specifically, yes, there are groups that would most definitely be deterred by an aggressive law enforcement response as opposed to a more passive response. Whether that response is a tackle, reasonable minds obviously differ.

Not only was it 100% obvious that this man did not have dangerous motives, I think it is a very slippery slope to allow police to use extra force because they want to send a message to others. By definition, that means they are using force beyond what the situation requires.

[positano]

Agreed

[MustangGT]

Running criminal trespasser. Trooper tackled him. If anybody thinks that the criminal trespasser would have surrendered if asked nicely is living in La La Land. Stupid SHOULD HURT!!!

[Of Sound Mind]

I could just as easily accuse you of being a roided up cop who likes to beat up people smaller than him.

You could, but then I could be accused of false impersonation of a law enforcement officer. And as I mentioned earlier, I generally believe that a growing number of law enforcement agencies are becoming increasingly over-militarized, overzealous and overreaching in violations of civil liberties. That being said, I saw nothing egregious or outrageous about the trooper's actions and find the virulent reactions to the incident to be both amusing and bemusing. Your rants just seem increasingly to be a classic example of "methinks thou doth protest too much."

[Laramie]

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.

He's has to take responsibility for his own actions.

You wouldn't see him bumping or tackling a 'streaking runner' if he paraded on to the field naked? Bring him down and handcuff a streaker, runner or walker (zombie); yes, I doubt if he'd want to touch someone in the nude with a 10-foot poll.

Is there a lesson learned here? Keep off the field of before/during/after games at Gaylord Family Oklahoma Memorial Stadium.

Could the officer have handled it another way? Let's face it; some officers are lapping for action and overreact. Let's hope an incident like this doesn't occur again.

The officer was in his rights to do what he did... If you are not authorized to enter the field of play--you subject yourself to this kind of treatment and become fair game.

[ThomPaine]

The biggest problem I have with it was the fact that he handcuffed him. The Trooper should have let him up, given him a three second head start, then tackled him again...

[Midtowner]

"methinks thou doth protest too much."

[Midtowner]

The officer was in his rights to do what he did... If you are not authorized to enter the field of play--you subject yourself to this kind of treatment and become fair game.

No, he wasn't within his rights. Read the thread. It's been thoroughly explained.

[ou48A]

Not only was it 100% obvious that this man did not have dangerous motives.

That is ridiculously wrong and you or nobody else could say that with 100% accuracy!

There is such a thing as every day common sense at play and no matter how hard any attorney try’s to twist this, our society is going to firmly reject their attempts to spin this with their absurdity’s........ There are real world reasons why this guy was apprehended in this manner that can not or will not be ignored by the vast majority of reasonable people in our society.

I haven't seen a better en example of a thread that shows most of the rest of us why there are way too many bad attorneys today who have far to much influence in our world today. They have a way of corrupting the laws of decency. In many way they have made our nation a worse place to live and this is just another example on a very long list of why.

[Midtowner]

[hoya]

That is ridiculously wrong and you or nobody else could say that with 100% accuracy!

There is such a thing as every day common sense at play and no matter how hard any attorney try’s to twist this, our society is going to firmly reject their attempts to spin this with their absurdity’s........ There are real world reasons why this guy was apprehended in this manner that can not or will not be ignored by the vast majority of reasonable people in our society.

I haven't seen a better en example of a thread that shows most of the rest of us why there are way too many bad attorneys today who have far to much influence in our world today. They have a way of corrupting the laws of decency. In many way they have made our nation a worse place to live and this is just another example on a very long list of why.

First, it was 100% obvious. We see proof of this by the fact that he did not have a bomb, or a gun, or anything else that could hurt everyone. He has already been caught. We know this as a matter of indisputable fact.

Second, you should learn the difference between a plural and a possessive. "Try's" and "absurdity's" would represent things owned by a try, and an absurdity. The form of the words you were searching for were "tries" and "absurdities". And it should have been "too", not "to".

Third, I have to take issue with your argument. It just doesn't make sense. Let's analyze it:

no matter how hard any attorney try’s to twist this, our society is going to firmly reject their attempts to spin this with their absurdity’s

and

there are way too many bad attorneys today who have far to much influence in our world today. They have a way of corrupting the laws of decency. In many way they have made our nation a worse place to live and this is just another example on a very long list of why.

You contradict yourself here, in the meat of your argument. Society is going to reject my devious spin attempts no matter how hard I try, but yet me and my people have a way of corrupting the laws of decency? I have way too much influence? How do I have such influence if society is going to reject my attempts to make this into something bigger? I'm confused. Am I a dangerous subversive or is society going to righteously reject my serpent tongue?

[RadicalModerate]

No, he wasn't within his rights. Read the thread. It's been thoroughly explained.

Only One thing left on the "To Do" List: Get on the "Right" side of "The Issue" before the ship leaves port.
(please be advised that no apostrophes were recklessly wasted and/or misused in the formation of the sentence, above. the jury is still out on the abuse of commas and quotation marks.)

'zackly whut does "read the thread" mean innywayz?
is it a presumption of guilty 'r not in no way involving innocence?

Dang: Just realized that I don't envy you your job. =)

[zookeeper]

Notice I haven't weighed back in on my own thread. I really wanted to see the reaction and if I was the only one that was bothered by the praise for Brian Orr. A lot of legal angles back and forth that's been interesting and well-stated by several. But I'm still most interested in the action itself. I knew I wanted to come back and ask this final question...

Consider for just a moment a different outcome. Consider that the guy didn't get up last week after the blindsided body blow from Brian Orr. Midtowner said it well when he said that, "it was only by sheer luck," that the guy didn't get injured. I agree with that and will take it one step further. Had the man not gotten up, and ended up instead of in handcuffs, but surrounded by medical personnel and the ambulance on the field, etc. Suppose he died instantly from a neck snap, severed spinal cord, etc. The man's punishment for just being ridiculous at a football game would have been the death penalty. How would you think about this then? When you go back and watch the tape over and over, would you still have said Orr did the right thing by charging at him and the over-the-top blow? Or, would you be saying, "Yeah, I can't believe with no pads or helmets the trooper would have blindsided that guy and killed him. He could have easily run up to him, pulled him into the cuff position and cuffed him and walk off the field." I contend that had the (very possible) fatal injury actually occurred, there would have been a widespread worldwide outrage and demands for murder charges against the over-zealous LEO.

Bottom line for me: Trooper Brian Orr lucked out. I think the actual action is enough for discipline, but I understand those who might not think so. But had the guy died of a broken neck or whatever last week - I honestly believe Brian Orr would be in jail on manslaughter or murder charges. The outrage would be loud from across the country. People would see that tape in a completely different way. Few would have said that the guy on the field really deserved that kind of hit from this overloaded-on-testerorone Highway Patrol Trooper. I hope Orr realizes just how lucky he really is.

[kevinpate]

I get your point, though I don't agree with it. I disagree with the level of intensity some elect
to assign to the contact that took place between the trooper and the person engaged.

In this particular thread, mine seems a minority view. I can live with that.

[boscorama]

Things might have been different if the trooper had seen the video before the incident occurred.

[David]

It's always hilarious to watch non-lawyers argue about the law with actual lawyers.