Pictures of the brutality....

[BULLheaded]

Battery is the illegal touching.  There is nothing illegal because the merchant has the right to detain the offender.  If the offender resists, the merchant can use force to defend and detain.  Therefore the touching is legal.  

I'm assuming there are also some rules as to what is "reasonable force" is there not? Or is it anything goes? For instance, someone walks on my lawn,  I go outside and tell them they are tresspassing and to please leave. However they don't and while walking by me I get "bumped".  I decide that is battery and can use force so I pick up a crow bar and crack his skull. the person ends up in a coma and the family presses charges. Question is, did I break the law or was I in my rights? Somehow I would be surprised if the courts would agree with what I did.

[GarySJ]

sorry but I have to disagree, I'm nearly 40 and I've been seeing every media outlet showcase this tradition as long as I can remember. It isn't until recently that there has been ANY indication that it may be wrong and that generally had to do with property destruction only. Shoot even the field storming event that took place with the teams still playing was broadcast on the news with total glee.

What does that have to do with what I said? Yes, it makes the news, because it's compelling video... especially when fights break out or people get trampled, which happens a lot. The fact that it makes the news doesn't give you an inalienable right to do it.

And you're blind if you haven't noticed that the occurence of the phenomenon has gone up about 1000% in recent years. When the University of Missouri football team gets field-stomped three times in one season, it's happening too often.

Who knows, maybe the authorities would be a little more lenient about it in rare and glorious occasions, if it weren't for the chuckleheads who want to do it every single game.

[Zonald]

Battery is the illegal touching.  There is nothing illegal because the merchant has the right to detain the offender.  If the offender resists, the merchant can use force to defend and detain.  Therefore the touching is legal.  

Well, totally off point by now.  You're are missing the point of the statute.  This is a penalty for the accused, not a right for the employer.  

Chapter 812. Theft, Robbery, and Related Crimes.  You can't use this statute to argue the point of the property owner has the right to touch someone.  Find the statute now that says use of force is allowed against trespassers and I will admit I was wrong.  

Otherwise, I point to Ch. 784. Assault and battery...

Those things ARE illegal.  

[N2O]

You already have stated you weren't there. Sure a gauge for "excessive use of force" is potentially subjective. However, you've heard, ad nauseum, from people that were there. This was clearly uphauling to witness first-hand.

Civil liberties are in place to keep authority from overstepping their bounds. What I witnessed that night was beyond an infringement of civil liberties, it was a humiliation of human dignity.

I tend to agree with you....but the word is APALLING.  BTW....if I was pulled over for speeding...lets say doing 80 in a 70mph zone....clearly breaking the law...can the State Trooper pull me over and yank my ass out of my car and put a choke-hold on me, or would that be considered excessive.

Sorry for your problems with the TSA folks and local police.  I think they (police) were out of line.

N2O

[Zonald]

I don't think you guys have a case here. As mentioned earlier in the thread, an event ticket is essentially a contract. I'd bet money that if you read the fine print, you'll find a line to the effect of "holder agrees to submit to stadium security."

Gary, good point.  Not to get lost in all of this, but the issue remains:

Whether the TSA employees have the right to use force when you do something wrong.  i.e. trespass.  

I say no.  Some others say yes.  

I am not arguing the students has a right to be on the field.  They clearly did not.  

[BULLheaded]

What does that have to do with what I said? Yes, it makes the news, because it's compelling video... especially when fights break out or people get trampled, which happens a lot. The fact that it makes the news doesn't give you an inalienable right to do it.

And you're blind if you haven't noticed that the occurence of the phenomenon has gone up about 1000% in recent years. When the University of Missouri football team gets field-stomped three times in one season, it's happening too often.

Who knows, maybe the authorities would be a little more lenient about it in rare and glorious occasions, if it weren't for the chuckleheads who want to do it every single game.

What do you mean? I thought it was pretty obvious. You said that storming the field was not tradition and was a fairly recent occurence. I disagree and point out that in all my 40 years it's been going on...shoot college football is only a tad over 100 years old so just my 40 years is a large chunk of football history. I thought that was pretty simple to understand.

Has the occurence increased recently? I'm not sure, has the coverage of the occurance increased? Yes, what IS recent is all sports networks and channel after channel of all sports networks, and classic sports channels and pay for sport channels so yes it certainly appears to have increased. Has it in reality? Who knows but it really isn't relevant when discussing if it is an old tradition or not.

[Guest]

I tend to agree with you....but the word is APALLING.  BTW....if I was pulled over for speeding...lets say doing 80 in a 70mph zone....clearly breaking the law...can the State Trooper pull me over and yank my ass out of my car and put a choke-hold on me, or would that be considered excessive.

Actually, if the police offer was attempting to arrest you, he could yank your ass out of your car and put a choke hold on you.

People on the field are being arrested for trespass... so law enforcement officers have every right to use force against them... they can sue for damages if they believe the police abused their force (see King, Rodney)

---

Zonald, "reasonable force" is left vague for a reason.  Only the court can decide whether or not the force was reasonable given the circumstances of the situation.

For example, if you trespass on Bullheaded's property and in refusing to leave, you bump him -- then he beats you with a crow-bar... that might not be reasonable force.  But if you trespassed and in refusing to leave started swinging punches at thime -- then he beats yout with a crow-bar... that might be reasonable force.

In any event, security personnel duly authorized by the property owner are within their legal rights to use reasonable force to remove trespassers from their property or detain them until they can be arrested by a law enforement officer.  The assault and battery laws do not apply in that case.   (Didn't you take a criminal law class at law school??)

---

Finally, I will say this, law enforcement officers are not mind readers.  While 99.99999999999999999999999999999999% of the fans that storm the field have only the best intentions, there are those who will take advantage of the situation.  How is the officer to know whether or not someone has good or bad intentions? It's better to assume the worst from everyone.

---

One last note.  Running on to the field is not a tradition.  In fact, it is illegal in almost every instance.  Every situation results in arrests -- the problem is that a few dozen law enforcement officers and security guards can't stop and arrest hundreds or thousands of fans on the field.

[Bobcat99]

<i>Running on to the field is not a tradition.</i>

I'm not sure any of us are in any position to say anything is or isn't a tradition. We've had a football team for NINE YEARS.

However, storming the field <i>is</i>, in general, a college football tradition.

<i>Tradition: In 1968, the most famous "loss" in college football history occurred. Both teams entered the game with 8-0 records. Harvard scored 16 points (two touchdowns and two two-point conversions) in the final 42 seconds and the game ended in a tie, 29-29. The headline in the Harvard school paper read: "Harvard beats Yale, 29-29." Harvard fans stormed the field after the final touchdown.</i>

[BULLheaded]

Actually, if the police offer was attempting to arrest you, he could yank your ass out of your car and put a choke hold on you.

People on the field are being arrested for trespass... so law enforcement officers have every right to use force against them... they can sue for damages if they believe the police abused their force (see King, Rodney)

---

Zonald, "reasonable force" is left vague for a reason.  Only the court can decide whether or not the force was reasonable given the circumstances of the situation.

For example, if you trespass on Bullheaded's property and in refusing to leave, you bump him -- then he beats you with a crow-bar... that might not be reasonable force.  But if you trespassed and in refusing to leave started swinging punches at thime -- then he beats yout with a crow-bar... that might be reasonable force.

In any event, security personnel duly authorized by the property owner are within their legal rights to use reasonable force to remove trespassers from their property or detain them until they can be arrested by a law enforement officer.  The assault and battery laws do not apply in that case.   (Didn't you take a criminal law class at law school??)

---

Finally, I will say this, law enforcement officers are not mind readers.  While 99.99999999999999999999999999999999% of the fans that storm the field have only the best intentions, there are those who will take advantage of the situation.  How is the officer to know whether or not someone has good or bad intentions? It's better to assume the worst from everyone.

---

One last note.  Running on to the field is not a tradition.  In fact, it is illegal in almost every instance.  Every situation results in arrests -- the problem is that a few dozen law enforcement officers and security guards can't stop and arrest hundreds or thousands of fans on the field.

two points

1)they can but SHOULD they? and if anyone gets seriously hurt I'd bet the courts might disagree

2)most of the talk I've seen has not referenced the cops but the TSA security and have they been given the full rights an officer would have?

I generally agree with cops use of force but in this case I just can't accept it. I think the environment has to be considered, if it is in an alley while arresting someone stealing a car then yeah it is perfectly understandable that an officer would feel the need to use force. If it is during a football game that is QUITE obvious people are running in to celebrate with each other then it isn't the same thing IMO. Again it gets back to the can they vs should they argument.

YES it is tradition and yes it is gonna happen and everyone involved knows it's gonna happen. And aside from very very very very rare instances it's harmless, so either accept this fun yet harmless activity or don't allow the games to happen on your property. It's like the lots outside, it's illegal to litter but we still allow people to eat in the lots. Are we going to beat people when they litter too? I mean, it IS illegal and it IS someone elses property yet we know if people are eating outside that people will litter. Either accept it or don't open the lots at all.

I guess where I'm going with this is that when we know something will occur then a little prudence is in order. And I don't think that having security ready to start a fight is very prudent.....and it certainly isn't effective anyway so all you end up with is a field STILL full of people with a select handfull of kids beaten up. Yeah, great plan.

[Zonald]

Zonald, "reasonable force" is left vague for a reason.  Only the court can decide whether or not the force was reasonable given the circumstances of the situation.

For example, if you trespass on Bullheaded's property and in refusing to leave, you bump him -- then he beats you with a crow-bar... that might not be reasonable force.  But if you trespassed and in refusing to leave started swinging punches at thime -- then he beats yout with a crow-bar... that might be reasonable force.

In any event, security personnel duly authorized by the property owner are within their legal rights to use reasonable force to remove trespassers from their property or detain them until they can be arrested by a law enforement officer.  The assault and battery laws do not apply in that case.   (Didn't you take a criminal law class at law school??)

1)  It's reasonable efforts, not "force."  

2)  I understand why it is broad.  But thank you anyway. Good thing I don't take the Bar until February.  

3)  The assault and battery laws do not apply ONLY when the offender has a firearm or other dangerous weapon.  See, FS 810.09(2)©.  The other statutes are silent to that fact, therefore, the laws still apply.  

If 810.09(2)© does not apply, as it did not on Saturday night (no firearms or dangerous weapons).  Therefore, the taking into custody and detention, based on 810.06(2)© COULD result in criminal or civil liability for false arrest, false imprisonment, or unlawful detention by a TSA employee.   As the statute is silent on the terms of assault and battery, they could also apply.  

4) Yes, I did take criminal law.  How long has it been since you took same?  So you are saying assault and battery laws do not apply to property owners (or agents thereof) when trespassing by an unarmed person occurs?  Hmmm, I do feel case law would suggest otherwise.