Trooper Brian Orr (OU Tackle Trooper) Should Be Arrested

[hoya]

You are the one saying tackle... I say he was hired to remove him from the field... Which is what he did.

No one is upset that the guy was removed from the field. No one is upset that the guy was handcuffed. No one is upset that the guy was arrested. No one is upset that the guy will have to pay an appropriate fine. All those things are perfectly acceptable.

Are there situations where tackling a fan who runs onto the field would be appropriate? Probably so. If the guy ran out during an active play, it may be reasonable to use more force. Some guy running out there while the ball is in the air has a greater chance of getting slammed into by a player, or tripping a player up, potentially causing an injury because he's an extra guy who is not supposed to be there. But this was during a TV timeout. If he was running all over the field, evading police officers who had tried to use less force to take him into custody, then an escalation might have been appropriate. If you can't get him off the field any other way, then it may be what you've got to do. But that hadn't happened here.

There are several different questions here, and your earlier post highlighted that. First, was the level of force appropriate? This is a question for a jury to decide. Personally I believe that the level of force used was excessive. Now, the level of damages involved in this case appear to be pretty low. A jury could decide that the police officer used too much force, and then turn around and award the guy on the field one dollar in damages. Those are seperate issues. But what Midtowner was referring to earlier was whether this is what he was hired to do.

The question is whether the police officer was acting within the scope of his employment. Let's say I'm a 7/11 clerk, and some kid steals a piece of gum from the store. When I catch him doing it, I whoop his ass. This action may exceed my legal authority to prevent theft from the store. If I'm just doing that on my own accord, then I'm the one who is liable. What any decent attorney will try to do is get money from 7/11 itself, because they have a lot more money than I do. So the question becomes, how responsible is 7/11? If they told me in my employee training "if some punk kid tries to take candy, you kick him in the back of the knee and then slam his head into the floor. That's part of your job", then 7/11 is absolutely liable.

Your claim is that the police officer here "did his job". The question is, what are OU's policies towards removing someone from the field? What are OHP's policies? Remember that even if OU or OHP told him it was a-ok to tackle a fan on the field, it doesn't automatically make it so. They don't have any authority to allow their employees to perform tortious acts. Just because 7/11, or OU, or OHP, says it's okay, doesn't mean it automatically is. If OU trains him that way, and they are wrong, then they become liable.

Does that make sense?

[Of Sound Mind]

200 posts on nine pages, most of which have to do with parsing the words of other posters and posing a myriad of hypothetical situations.

Lock.

Or you could just ignore.

I, for one, am thoroughly entertained.

[RadicalModerate]

200 posts on nine pages, most of which have to do with parsing the words of other posters and posing a myriad of hypothetical situations.

Lock.

What's the difference between parsing and vetting? Is it related, hypothetically, to the difference between tackling and taking down?

Would Howard "The Sportscaster Lawyer" Cosell have gotten in trouble for saying something like, "Look-at-that-Smokey-run!" ?

[Dustin]

Or you could just ignore.

I, for one, am thoroughly entertained.

I know. This is the most fun I have had reading posts in a long time!

[ThomPaine]

So you are saying if you were selected for the jury in this hypothetical case, the evidence presented in the trial would mean nothing because you have already decided your verdict?

I don't think I'm the one who doesn't know how the law is supposed to work.

If trials were meant to be decided strictly based on law, there would be no reason to be tried by your peers. An expert in the law, say, I don't know, maybe a judge, could decide all cases.

And I never meant to infer you or anyone else didn't know how the law works. (Honest)

I have sat on a jury, but have never been tried before one. I have been tackled on a football field (in pads), and have even charged onto the field after a big game (picking up oranges and having a great time), but I have never been tackled by a Trooper. I can, however, GUARANTEE you that if I were ever tackled by a Trooper, I would be too ashamed to ever complain to anyone.

[RadicalModerate]

200 posts on nine pages, most of which have to do with parsing the words of other posters and posing a myriad of hypothetical situations.

Lock.

And furthermore . . . Are LEOs . . . or even LIBRANS and or Sagitarianites, not to mention Aquarians and Quakers and Virgonians, badged and charged with doing their duty . . . or the dooty of others?

I think we need to abandon, completely, the "liberal notion" of a jury of one's peers and return to the days of a jury of one's spears.
And I am nearly certain that The Founding Fathers of Our Constitutional Republic Would Agree if, indeed, Their vote mattered.

(sorry, just had to "channel" Mel Blanc's writers there for a second. (spec. ref.: Foghorn Leghorn, all rights reserved, mea culpa.)

(if that obscure, unofficial, vaguely humorous, reference eludes you, please be advised to refer to the thread regarding the superior humor potential contained in the Loony Tunes and Merrie Melodies o' Decades Gone By. elsewhere in here. summ'ers. and feel free not to accept that suggestion. ok?)

dang. if only all that wuz phrased in Latin . . . ?

[RadicalModerate]

I know. This is the most fun I have had reading posts in a long time!

This is almost as fun as The Great Train Horn Controversy.
Keyword: Almost.

[RadicalModerate]

So you are saying if you were selected for the jury in this hypothetical case, the evidence presented in the trial would mean nothing because you have already decided your verdict?

I don't think I'm the one who doesn't know how the law is supposed to work.

Lawyers: Always Treading Carefully Around the Mobius Strip of Perceived Reality.
Can't Live With 'Em . . . Can't Live Without 'Em. =)

(trooper orr is innocent of wrongdoing.)
(imho, only, of course)

Post #47:
http://www.okctalk.com/nostalgia-mem...tml#post709750
Please note that I have never, not once, "tied down a pun'kin" yet the beat goes on . . .

[Jeepnokc]

Lawyers: Always Treading Carefully Around the Mobius Strip of Perceived Reality.
Can't Live With 'Em . . . Can't Live Without 'Em. =)

(trooper orr is innocent of wrongdoing.)
(imho, only, of course)

Post #47:
http://www.okctalk.com/nostalgia-mem...tml#post709750
Please note that I have never, not once, "tied down a pun'kin" yet the beat goes on . . .

I tell people all the time that everyone hates lawyers until they need us. Then we are their best friend.

[Of Sound Mind]

I tell people all the time that everyone hates lawyers until they need us. Then we are their best friend.

The same can be said about cops.

[td25er]

If you are on the field you are a threat. Ask the Chicago Whitesox 1st base coach who got ASSAULTED ON THE FIELD by 2 fans if he wishes security would have used force and prevented his INJURIES.

Idiots defending the guy who BROKE THE LAW.

[Roger S]

If you are on the field you are a threat. Ask the Chicago Whitesox 1st base coach who got ASSAULTED ON THE FIELD by 2 fans if he wishes security would have used force and prevented his INJURIES.

Idiots defending the guy who BROKE THE LAW.

Well those idiots would probably tell you that in this country you are innocent until proven guilty.... and they would be right about that...... BUT...... I'm going to go out on a limb and say the only innocent people being tackled on football fields are wearing pads and helmets and even some of them aren't so innocent.

[bombermwc]

If you are on the field you are a threat. Ask the Chicago Whitesox 1st base coach who got ASSAULTED ON THE FIELD by 2 fans if he wishes security would have used force and prevented his INJURIES.

Idiots defending the guy who BROKE THE LAW.

And this is why folks...the potential for the "crazy" to do any number of things. When you go to the game, you know you're not supposed to go on the field. Do you hop down on the court at a Thunder game? No....and you're going to get tackled a LOT faster there than at an OU game. Why? Because the court isn't as big and the officer doesn't have as far to go. But you absolutely will not see an officer casually walk over to the guy, giving him a chance to run and by which he would potentially also escalate the situation.

The officer did exactly what he was supposed to do.

[Midtowner]

I think we can get the point without such an abundance of caps lock.

And of course you'd maybe have a point if this guy was in anyway threatening in appearance. He wasn't running towards anyone specifically and was making OU signs with his arms while appearing to have a good time. I mean for your theory to be rational, every single person who ever rushes the field is deemed a threat to the health and safety of everyone on the field. If that's the case, would a simple tackle be enough? Why are we not talking deadly force? You jump on the field, you become target practice for all of the law enforcement on the field. You could be carrying a bomb or a biological weapon for all they know.

Sounds reasonable, right?

[RadicalModerate]

I think we can get the point without such an abundance of caps lock.

And of course you'd maybe have a point if this guy was in anyway threatening in appearance. He wasn't running towards anyone specifically and was making OU signs with his arms while appearing to have a good time. I mean for your theory to be rational, every single person who ever rushes the field is deemed a threat to the health and safety of everyone on the field. If that's the case, would a simple tackle be enough? Why are we not talking deadly force? You jump on the field, you become target practice for all of the law enforcement on the field. You could be carrying a bomb or a biological weapon for all they know.

Sounds reasonable, right?

There is no room for the concept of innocence in the courtroom . . .
It's all about guiltiness and non-guiltiness.
(and trooper orr had no guiltiness in the matter under discussion. why . . . to even imply that he did--or had--nibbles away at the foundations of law enforcementism like an insidious societal termite and applies the eraser of the pencil of anarchy to point A of the thin blue line.)