Another Taser disaster.

[Bigends]

Greendubber said:

Bigends said:

bmw535i said:

XCP said:

bmw535i said:

It never is. There is always someone to blame for mistakes.

Indeed. That person was not me though.

But that wasn't a mistake, it was a fk up? If there is a difference why are both similarly blameworthy? Your pedantry seems to confuse even yourself.

Mistakes were made, apologies given. It will happen again sadly, but it appears that in general the police force are very unaccepting of their own mistakes. The attitudes on here appear to reflect that.

Any statements made by the Police will be the usual corporate bull***t. The apology will mean nothing. They will base their statement 'The taser was deployed appropriately' based purely on the offices account and not the facts.Just empty words - its the Police way unfortunately. They wont admit wrongdoing as it will cost them dearly.

What facts? You know full well its down to the officers honestly held belief AT THE TIME.

Exactly - thats all they have to give as a reason - impossible to disprove -

[Greendubber]

Bigends said:

Greendubber said:

Bigends said:

bmw535i said:

XCP said:

bmw535i said:

It never is. There is always someone to blame for mistakes.

Indeed. That person was not me though.

But that wasn't a mistake, it was a fk up? If there is a difference why are both similarly blameworthy? Your pedantry seems to confuse even yourself.

Mistakes were made, apologies given. It will happen again sadly, but it appears that in general the police force are very unaccepting of their own mistakes. The attitudes on here appear to reflect that.

Any statements made by the Police will be the usual corporate bull***t. The apology will mean nothing. They will base their statement 'The taser was deployed appropriately' based purely on the offices account and not the facts.Just empty words - its the Police way unfortunately. They wont admit wrongdoing as it will cost them dearly.

What facts? You know full well its down to the officers honestly held belief AT THE TIME.

Exactly - thats all they have to give as a reason - impossible to disprove -

"They will base their statement 'The taser was deployed appropriately' based purely on the offices account and not the facts"

So what facts were you suggesting earlier on then?

[Bigends]

Greendubber said:

Bigends said:

Greendubber said:

Bigends said:

bmw535i said:

XCP said:

bmw535i said:

It never is. There is always someone to blame for mistakes.

Indeed. That person was not me though.

But that wasn't a mistake, it was a fk up? If there is a difference why are both similarly blameworthy? Your pedantry seems to confuse even yourself.

Mistakes were made, apologies given. It will happen again sadly, but it appears that in general the police force are very unaccepting of their own mistakes. The attitudes on here appear to reflect that.

Any statements made by the Police will be the usual corporate bull***t. The apology will mean nothing. They will base their statement 'The taser was deployed appropriately' based purely on the offices account and not the facts.Just empty words - its the Police way unfortunately. They wont admit wrongdoing as it will cost them dearly.

What facts? You know full well its down to the officers honestly held belief AT THE TIME.

Exactly - thats all they have to give as a reason - impossible to disprove -

"They will base their statement 'The taser was deployed appropriately' based purely on the offices account and not the facts"

So what facts were you suggesting earlier on then?

The facts as disclosed to Police at the time by the officer who shot him. Another quick question - if they thought he had a gun - shouldnt they have shot him with a firearm? Is it usual to deal with a suspected gun with a taser? The facts are - this was a man carrying a folded walking cane - NOT a firearm.

Edited by Bigends on Wednesday 1st March 18:18

Edited by Bigends on Wednesday 1st March 18:37

[Rovinghawk]

Greendubber said:

You know full well its down to the officers honestly held belief AT THE TIME.

I said on page 2 that this excuse would be used. Weaselling out is what separates man from the animals.

(Except weasels, obviously.)

[Greendubber]

Bigends said:

Greendubber said:

Bigends said:

Greendubber said:

Bigends said:

bmw535i said:

XCP said:

bmw535i said:

It never is. There is always someone to blame for mistakes.

Indeed. That person was not me though.

But that wasn't a mistake, it was a fk up? If there is a difference why are both similarly blameworthy? Your pedantry seems to confuse even yourself.

Mistakes were made, apologies given. It will happen again sadly, but it appears that in general the police force are very unaccepting of their own mistakes. The attitudes on here appear to reflect that.

Any statements made by the Police will be the usual corporate bull***t. The apology will mean nothing. They will base their statement 'The taser was deployed appropriately' based purely on the offices account and not the facts.Just empty words - its the Police way unfortunately. They wont admit wrongdoing as it will cost them dearly.

What facts? You know full well its down to the officers honestly held belief AT THE TIME.

Exactly - thats all they have to give as a reason - impossible to disprove -

"They will base their statement 'The taser was deployed appropriately' based purely on the offices account and not the facts"

So what facts were you suggesting earlier on then?

The facts as disclosed to Police at the time by the officer who shot him. Another quick question - if they thought he had a gun - shouldnt they have shot him with a firearm? Is it usual to deal with a suspected gun with a taser? The facts are - this was a man carrying a folded walking cane - NOT a firearm.

Edited by Bigends on Wednesday 1st March 18:18

Edited by Bigends on Wednesday 1st March 18:37

Which was reported to police to be a gun....and turned out to be a folded cane AFTER the bloke had ignored the officers attempting to deal with him verbally.

[Greendubber]

Rovinghawk said:

Greendubber said:

You know full well its down to the officers honestly held belief AT THE TIME.

I said on page 2 that this excuse would be used. Weaselling out is what separates man from the animals.

(Except weasels, obviously.)

Its not weaselling out of anything.

[Bigends]

Greendubber said:

Rovinghawk said:

Greendubber said:

You know full well its down to the officers honestly held belief AT THE TIME.

I said on page 2 that this excuse would be used. Weaselling out is what separates man from the animals.

(Except weasels, obviously.)

Its not weaselling out of anything.

Its a bombproof defence - impossible to disprove. The only one who could potentially disprove it would be the other officer present if for example the shooter stated theyd taser the target regardless of what they saw when they arrived. No bodycams in this instance I assume? If the officer honestly believed he had a gun he should have been shot with a firearm surely? In every other case when someone only has to twitch inside a car they are shot dead - in this case they had more justification to shoot him than they did with Azelle Rodney for example at least this one had a 'gun' visible. Loks like this was a non compliance rather than a posed threat tasering

Edited by Bigends on Wednesday 1st March 18:59

Edited by Bigends on Wednesday 1st March 19:16

[Greendubber]

Bigends said:

Greendubber said:

Rovinghawk said:

Greendubber said:

You know full well its down to the officers honestly held belief AT THE TIME.

I said on page 2 that this excuse would be used. Weaselling out is what separates man from the animals.

(Except weasels, obviously.)

Its not weaselling out of anything.

Its a bombproof defence - impossible to disprove. The only one who could potentially disprove it would be the other officer present if for example the shooter stated theyd taser the target regardless of what they saw when they arrived. No bodycams in this instance I assume?

I have no idea about BWV, I'd imagine the stations covered in cameras though.

[XCP]

bmw535i said:

XCP said:

bmw535i said:

It never is. There is always someone to blame for mistakes.

Indeed. That person was not me though.

But that wasn't a mistake, it was a fk up? If there is a difference why are both similarly blameworthy? Your pedantry seems to confuse even yourself.

Mistakes were made, apologies given. It will happen again sadly, but it appears that in general the police force are very unaccepting of their own mistakes. The attitudes on here appear to reflect that.

I don't know what point you are trying to make. You seem to be trying to tie a simple concept in knots.
Again, as far as I am concerned a little mistake is a mistake. A big mistake I call a fk up. In my time I have had to apologise for both, both my own and those of others.
In the incident I described I was present, in a minor role, but the mistake was not mine.

If that confuses you, I apologise.

[anonymous-user]

XCP said:

I don't know what point you are trying to make. You seem to be trying to tie a simple concept in knots.
Again, as far as I am concerned a little mistake is a mistake. A big mistake I call a fk up. In my time I have had to apologise for both, both my own and those of others.
In the incident I described I was present, in a minor role, but the mistake was not mine.

If that confuses you, I apologise.

The point I made was that mistakes and fk ups are the same - something you now agree with. I don't care about your mistakes, I'm talking about the taser incident.

[brenflys777]

Rovinghawk said:

brenflys777 said:

I find the anti Police hysteria

It's not anti-police, it's anti-idiot.

In an incident where even the man who was tazed accepts the apology of the Police, makes no complaint and also states his behaviour would have caused concern... you aren't being anti-idiot in your postings you are being pro-idiotic.

Rovinghawk said:

brenflys777 said:

assume that mistakes are the result of deliberate intent or incompetence

I don't think anyone has suggested malice, just incompetence.

As I said, keyboard warriors assuming one or the other. Actually mistakes can be made but in circumstances where any reasonable and competent person could make the same mistaken judgement because of the circumstances.

Rovinghawk said:

brenflys777 said:

The worst assumption in this thread to me is the patronising assumption that a blind man can't present a threat - they're normal people too.

They apologised & apparently bought him a coke- doesn't sound like the way they'd treat a threat. Do you regularly buy drinks for people who've been a genuine risk to your safety? I doubt it.

Again, assumptions based on lack of knowledge or experience. I often had to buy someone I'd arrested something from the vending machine while we did interviews or paperwork. Perfectly possible to deal with someone politely and thoughtfully once they are no longer a danger because its not personal. Its professional.

Do you accept that a man seen at night who does not comply with armed officers who've attended because of public concerns about his behaviour, who is holding an object which might be a gun represents a genuine threat? If not - is it because with hindsight it wasn't a gun? Or is it because he was blind?

[anonymous-user]

Greendubber said:

Which was reported to police to be a gun....and turned out to be a folded cane AFTER the bloke had ignored the officers attempting to deal with him verbally.

I suppose if the copper said to him, "put the gun down", it might be quite confusing to him as he wasn't carrying one. I'm actually amazed the police responded to these reports. If only they'd just ordered a macdonalds - the whole thing could have been avoided.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.mirror.co.uk/news...

[Rovinghawk]

brenflys777 said:

Do you accept that a man seen at night

Genuine question- was it dark or well lit as stations so often are?

brenflys777 said:

who does not comply with armed officers

Is non-compliance justification for firing tasers?

brenflys777 said:

who've attended because of public concerns about his behaviour

They should rely on what they see, not rumours.

brenflys777 said:

who is holding an object which might be a gun represents a genuine threat?

I was always taught to identify a threat before firing- one may not fire because something might possibly be dodgy.

brenflys777 said:

If not - is it because with hindsight it wasn't a gun? Or is it because he was blind?

Did they see a gun? No- because there wasn't one. Did they think they saw a gun? Or did they just rely on 'reports'?

How many times will it be acceptable for police to taser blind people before they 'learn lessons' that they should identify a target before firing? This 'honest belief' is an over-used cliche to cover inappropriate action.

[Elroy Blue]

Bigends said:

Its a bombproof defence - impossible to disprove. The only one who could potentially disprove it would be the other officer present if for example the shooter stated theyd taser the target regardless of what they saw when they arrived. No bodycams in this instance I assume? If the officer honestly believed he had a gun he should have been shot with a firearm surely? In every other case when someone only has to twitch inside a car they are shot dead - in this case they had more justification to shoot him than they did with Azelle Rodney for example at least this one had a 'gun' visible. Loks like this was a non compliance rather than a posed threat tasering

Edited by Bigends on Wednesday 1st March 18:59

Edited by Bigends on Wednesday 1st March 19:16

Your utter, utter ignorance of the most basic Police procedures and reasoning again proves you are a complete Walter Mitty.

Nobody who claims to have been in 30 years can be as clueless of you.

"If they honestly believed he had a gun he should have been shot with a firearm"

Absolutely pathetic comment. Pathetic.

[XCP]

bmw535i said:

The point I made was that mistakes and fk ups are the same - something you now agree with. I don't care about your mistakes, I'm talking about the taser incident.

My position hasn't changed. I've apologised for mistakes of all types, both mine and other peoples, lots of times. Sorry if that was unclear.

[Bigends]

Elroy Blue said:

Bigends said:

Its a bombproof defence - impossible to disprove. The only one who could potentially disprove it would be the other officer present if for example the shooter stated theyd taser the target regardless of what they saw when they arrived. No bodycams in this instance I assume? If the officer honestly believed he had a gun he should have been shot with a firearm surely? In every other case when someone only has to twitch inside a car they are shot dead - in this case they had more justification to shoot him than they did with Azelle Rodney for example at least this one had a 'gun' visible. Loks like this was a non compliance rather than a posed threat tasering

Edited by Bigends on Wednesday 1st March 18:59

Edited by Bigends on Wednesday 1st March 19:16

Your utter, utter ignorance of the most basic Police procedures and reasoning again proves you are a complete Walter Mitty.

Nobody who claims to have been in 30 years can be as clueless of you.

"If they honestly believed he had a gun he should have been shot with a firearm"

Absolutely pathetic comment. Pathetic.

Explain please - if it had been a gun and the taser hadnt worked - what then?? Would they have been shpt?? You need to calm yourself down matey..I bet youre a bundle of laughs to work with if you get this cranked up over a car forum..anyway..explain to the uninitiated please - never handled a gun in my life. He apparently had a gun in his hand and wasnt complying - why wasnt he shot? At what point should they have done so??

Edited by Bigends on Wednesday 1st March 20:10

[Greendubber]

bmw535i said:

Greendubber said:

Which was reported to police to be a gun....and turned out to be a folded cane AFTER the bloke had ignored the officers attempting to deal with him verbally.

I suppose if the copper said to him, "put the gun down", it might be quite confusing to him as he wasn't carrying one. I'm actually amazed the police responded to these reports. If only they'd just ordered a macdonalds - the whole thing could have been avoided.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.mirror.co.uk/news...

It might well have been confusing but dont forget the bloke actually said he decided to ignore what the police had told him to do so its fairly obvious he knew exactly what was going on, yet he decided to ignore the requests being made of him.

[anonymous-user]

XCP said:

My position hasn't changed. I've apologised for mistakes of all types, both mine and other peoples, lots of times. Sorry if that was unclear.

XCP said:

bmw535i said:

Apparently a fk up is different to a mistake.

Yep.

XCP said:

A big mistake I call a fk up.

You don't need to keep apologising for your mistakes on here by the way

[XCP]

Sorry.

[Elroy Blue]

Bigends said:

Explain please - if it had been a gun and the taser hadnt worked - what then?? Would they have been shpt?? You need to calm yourself down matey..I bet youre a bundle of laughs to work with if you get this cranked up over a car forum..anyway..explain to the uninitiated please - never handled a gun in my life. He apparently had a gun in his hand and wasnt complying - why wasnt he shot? At what point should they have done so??

Edited by Bigends on Wednesday 1st March 20:10

Even a Proby in his first week knows about use of Force. You don't appear to know anything.

(And resorting to the usual suspect response of 'calm yourself' because you've been challenged, equally pathetic)