Jokes/Interweb Things Thread, Tasered for being blind in Fun Stuff; Originally Posted by Disease
On the same basis as your argument if you make a mistake you do not risk ...
18th October 2012, 03:56 PM #46
I think this thread is losing sight of that fact that the issue was not that a person was tasered for carrying a sword (and indeed the original article states that a person was later arrested in another part of town for the sword incident), or indeed the issue of the use of tasers in policing, but that a police officer tasered a blind man carrying an assistance stick under the mistaken belief that the assistance stick was a sword. The issue in my mind is (and continues to be) that a device that has been linked to and associated with deaths either directly or from complications associated with its modus operandi was used on an innocent man because the operator of the device did not pause sufficiently to ascertain whether or not the long, slim white stick was in fact a japanese-style sword (of any description) and simply discharged his device. If the officer had a gun instead of a taser, would he have made the same decision? Was the appearance of the taser as 'non lethal' instrumental in the officer shooting this man? Did the officer think that 'I'm not sure if this person is dangerous, but the taser won't kill him so I'll shoot him anyway just to be on the safe side'? I don't think that's the right way to think.
Originally Posted by Disease
I certainly believe that in this day and age of feral 'yoof' and the increasing instance of assault as an answer to almost everything, our police force can no longer continue to be effective without a deterant and the taser is a suitable armament when the alternatives (firearms) are considered. What I don't agree with is that it was even POSSIBLE for the officer to make this kind of mistake. As a previous poster has mentioned, the range of a taser is 5-7m - it isn't hard to make out the details of a blind persons assistance stick at 6m (lets take an average there). If a police officer is in a position to discharge his weapon, clearly it was not a crowded place otherwise the level of risk of 'friendly fire' may have been too great and if it was too crowded to see the suspect properly, how can he be sure what he saw? So he has a clear view of the target, clear Line of sight, and the target is obviously not running, dodging or otherwise evading him. So what concerns me the most is the possibility that either the officer is visually impaired in some way, in which case why was he on active duty armed with a taser, and why did he find it appropriate to discharge a taser if he couldn't see the suspect clearly enough? Or the officer deliberately made the decision to 'shoot first ask questions later' which shows a level of arrogance and disregard for the person he tased. Especially when the circumstances of this specific incident easily allowed for the officer to clarify and confirm his observation whereupon he would have realised that the white stick was not a threat. The bloke obviously wasn't performing parkour-like acrobatics to get away from him was he? Or elbowing through crowds of people waving a blade. So why did the officer feel he needed to shoot so quickly?
18th October 2012, 04:09 PM #47
Way to miss the point. Was this man behaving in a threatening way? No. Was he waving a samurai sword around? No. Did the officer put any effort into actually making sure this blind old man was the person they wanted? No.
Originally Posted by Disease
No, instead, the police officer shot him in the back without doing any of the things they are required to do.
If the man had been coming at him, swinging a stick, then the taser would be fine to use.
And your comment is what I'd refer to as 'pathetic right wing nonsense', typical of the drivel spewed by those who think the country has gone to pot because of liberal attitudes.
18th October 2012, 04:16 PM #48
I'm marching in London on Saturday. It should be interesting as I'll be wearing my V for Vendetta mask. Last time I was down in London on a protest (26th March 2011) I was asked to remove it and when I did (only to reveal another one underneath) I spent twenty minutes in the back of a police van for my troubles. A tad heavy handed considering I'm a short, middle-aged, balding old fart. I don't condone any form of troublemaking but what I do object most strongly to is the gradual erosion of our right to protest that has become the reality in this country.
18th October 2012, 04:19 PM #49
The law was changed a few years ago to make it an offence to not remove face coverings when instructed to by the police. Ridiculous really, but it was brought in to tackle the rising problem of 'black block' take-overs of protests where they come along all covered up and decide to cause trouble.
Originally Posted by tech_guy
I think it came in around the same time as the law making it illegal to engage in activity that could put police at risk - eg. photographing them.
18th October 2012, 04:30 PM #50
Are you involved in the badger cull protests? We're trying to organise something now that it seems to be going ahead in West Gloucestershire.
18th October 2012, 04:35 PM #51
I haven't been, but I'd be up for it, so long as it was all above board.
Originally Posted by tech_guy
Its a trek for me to get anywhere though. West Somerset has just had its licenses given too.
18th October 2012, 04:47 PM #52
Some links you may be aware of:
Stop the cull - rspca.org.uk
Mrs.Tech_Guy and myself are ready to do our bit. We'll be in Gloucestershire this Sunday to disrupt any culling activity if we can.
18th October 2012, 04:51 PM #53
relay this is the police force.
Originally Posted by localzuk
By nicholab in forum General Chat
Last Post: 24th January 2012, 11:31 AM
By Dos_Box in forum General Chat
Last Post: 22nd November 2011, 06:52 PM
Last Post: 26th January 2007, 12:22 AM
By russdev in forum General Chat
Last Post: 16th January 2007, 08:32 PM
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)