Dalian Atkinson dies after being tasered by police

[Duafc]

Interestingly in Northern Ireland all police officers carry a loaded firearm, but only specialised units carry tasers.

Totally different climate but NI also has vastly lower numbers of police killings in an environment were police are directly targeted by home grown terrorists. Though I think this may also just be a size thing in some part, and obviously London has a range of challenges for Police that NI doesn't.

Ultimately I don't think people leaping to criticise the actions of officers when full facts aren't known really understand the stress and weight of these split second situations police find themselves in, and just want to have an easy dig. If someone is armed, aggressive, unpredictable through drugs or alcohol, threatening violence or whatever; The decision is made in extreme stress and sometimes with only the little information at hand. It's no ones job to be assaulted or worse, they have to take steps to keep themselves, their colleagues and the public safe and ultimately justify any actions.

Justifying those actions to an independent investigator and potentially judge and jury is a scary thing but the right thing. I don't think there's any need for people with limited facts at hand casting conclusions or dispersions on the people risking their health and wellbeing to help our communities. Let the professionals and courts do that if required.

In this instance, I am absolutely sure the man wasn't tasered for nothing, it's up to the officer to justify his decision to use that level of force, however no one could predict the reaction and tragic consequence. It's a viable and government issued tactical option, that the officer was trained to use.

 

[witchtrials]

I'm not sure what you're saying. The IPCC haven't ruled anything with regards to this incident yet but you're talking about how incompetent they are so it seems whatever outcome is reached you would be dissatisfied as you don't believe in them anyway?

It's quite simple - I'm saying it's totally unacceptable just to say (as someone else did earlier in the thread) that we can be 100% sure that the use of taser was justified, and that's it not enough to say that there's going to be investigation so justice will be served when the credibility of the body running that investigation is dubious to say the least (read the aforementioned report if you need more details of this - the conclusion is probably only about a couple of thousand words). Instead people should scrutinise the evidence as it is released and make sure that enough is being done. It's only when people pull these organisations up on their failings that they actually change.

I'm also interested to hear what these insufficient reasons are as to why taser use is not proportionate? Infact I don't even understand what you're saying.

Well, I feel like I've been quite clear about this over the last few pages, but once again: I'm saying that when they were first issued in this country it was to firearms officers as a "less-lethal" alternative to using a gun i.e. life or death situations. This is hard to argue with, but a few years down the line their usage is much more general. We know that tasers can and do kill, so police should only use them when it's worth taking that risk of killing someone. This means, for example, that they shouldn't be used to shoot people who are not a serious threat, and they certainly shouldn't be used just to pacify uncooperative people. Clearly there is some recognition in law and procedures that they should not be used casually, but the guidance is not particularly specific and ensuring compliance is down to a body that is "woefully underequipped", "hamstrung", "not capable" etc. Unless there is serious scrutiny of police conduct - which the IPCC clearly has not been providing - there is nothing to ensure people are safe from unnecessary use of these weapons.

 

[TheReligion]

It's quite simple - I'm saying it's totally unacceptable just to say (as someone else did earlier in the thread) that we can be 100% sure that the use of taser was justified, and that's it not enough to say that there's going to be investigation so justice will be served when the credibility of the body running that investigation is dubious to say the least (read the aforementioned report if you need more details of this - the conclusion is probably only about a couple of thousand words). Instead people should scrutinise the evidence as it is released and make sure that enough is being done. It's only when people pull these organisations up on their failings that they actually change.



Well, I feel like I've been quite clear about this over the last few pages, but once again: I'm saying that when they were first issued in this country it was to firearms officers as a "less-lethal" alternative to using a gun i.e. life or death situations. This is hard to argue with, but a few years down the line their usage is much more general. We know that tasers can and do kill, so police should only use them when it's worth taking that risk of killing someone. This means, for example, that they shouldn't be used to shoot people who are not a serious threat, and they certainly shouldn't be used just to pacify uncooperative people. Clearly there is some recognition in law and procedures that they should not be used casually, but the guidance is not particularly specific and ensuring compliance is down to a body that is "woefully underequipped", "hamstrung", "not capable" etc. Unless there is serious scrutiny of police conduct - which the IPCC clearly has not been providing - there is nothing to ensure people are safe from unnecessary use of these weapons.

Taser isn't used as a compliance method for people who are uncooperative. Guidance is specific and officers must explain it's use in line with use of force legislation. Officers who are authorised to use taser are specially trained to do so. Not everyone has one or is deemed capable of carrying.

You're saying an awful lot without any facts. Just your own opinion.

 

[witchtrials]

Taser isn't used as a compliance method for people who are uncooperative. Guidance is specific and officers must explain it's use in line with use of force legislation. Officers who are authorised to use taser are specially trained to do so. Not everyone has one or is deemed capable of carrying.

You're saying an awful lot without any facts. Just your own opinion.

I take it you don't pay any attention to cases like this then? Because, you know, to some people repeatedly a entirely non-violent mentally ill person in front of his 8 year old daughter would be cause for some sort of disciplinary action. Not for West Midlands Police though, who took no action whatsoever against the officers responsible. Is this kind of needless violence allowed by police policy? Or is policy not enforced? Which is it?

 

[TheReligion]

I take it you don't pay any attention to cases like this then? Because, you know, to some people repeatedly a entirely non-violent mentally ill person in front of his 8 year old daughter would be cause for some sort of disciplinary action. Not for West Midlands Police though, who took no action whatsoever against the officers responsible. Is this kind of needless violence allowed by police policy? Or is policy not enforced? Which is it?

And thats your facts? One side of a story from a local newspaper? Was the man entirely non violent? Were you there? Why would the mental health team request police if that was the case?

I presume you know ALL of the facts of this incident having made a judgement that the officers actions were needless and officers should have been disciplined?

You see this is what you keep doing. Giving your own opinion and passing it off as fact and what is right.

 

[witchtrials]

And thats your facts? One side of a story from a local newspaper? Was the man entirely non violent? Were you there? Why would the mental health team request police if that was the case?

I presume you know ALL of the facts of this incident having made a judgement that the officers actions were needless and officers should have been disciplined?

You see this is what you keep doing. Giving your own opinion and passing it off as fact and what is right.

No, that's called an example, and your response to the example reflects exactly the sort of attitudes that cause people to be worried about giving the police tasers, i.e. that regardless of whether the guy was violent there could have been a fear that he could have become violent etc. I'm not sure if you actually read the article but WMP paid out substantial damages to the man in the aftermath of this incident. Why do you suppose they did that? Do the police routinely hand out large sums of cash to people for no reason?

Not really sure why you're so upset that it was reported in a local paper, but here is the same story in national papers too, since it seems to make a difference to you:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-West-Midlands-Police-trying-section-him.html
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/dad-tasered-4-times-police-6839335

We can carry on talking about this and other examples too if you like.

I'm glad you agree that to be able to have confidence in the police we need all the facts in these kinds of cases. I'm interested in how you think we can strengthen or replace the IPCC so that police face proper accountability. What sort of reforms do you think are necessary for them to be able to conduct thorough and robust investigations and properly hold police to account?

 

[Rado_N]

We are talking about a weapon that, in the hands of US police alone, kills one about one person per week.

How many times is a taser utilised by police per week in the US?

 

[TheReligion]

No, that's called an example, and your response to the example reflects exactly the sort of attitudes that cause people to be worried about giving the police tasers, i.e. that regardless of whether the guy was violent there could have been a fear that he could have become violent etc. I'm not sure if you actually read the article but WMP paid out substantial damages to the man in the aftermath of this incident. Why do you suppose they did that? Do the police routinely hand out large sums of cash to people for no reason?

Not really sure why you're so upset that it was reported in a local paper, but here is the same story in national papers too, since it seems to make a difference to you:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-West-Midlands-Police-trying-section-him.html
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/dad-tasered-4-times-police-6839335

We can carry on talking about this and other examples too if you like.

I'm glad you agree that to be able to have confidence in the police we need all the facts in these kinds of cases. I'm interested in how you think we can strengthen or replace the IPCC so that police face proper accountability. What sort of reforms do you think are necessary for them to be able to conduct thorough and robust investigations and properly hold police to account?

I just find it strange you've decided the man was entirely non violent yet the actual facts suggest the mental health team has grounds for requesting police assistance to help them due to the risk he presented. Police won't routinely attend these things without good reason. In addition to send 4 officers would to me suggest the intelligence held by either the police and/or the mental health team suggested he could pose a significant risk. He had also been deemed to have been suffering with a mental health condition to the extent he required detaining forcibly into hospital (ie he would not consent to going voluntary). It immediately concerns me that a man suffering with such a condition had custody of his child.

If you don't see where all the potential risks are in that scenario then that's up to you.

From the subsequent investigation no officer was deemed to have done anything wrong nor did the force say it was culpable. Without knowing more about the facts I can't comment and neither can you.

You have decided the IPCC is unfit for purpose so surely it's best you suggest how you would make it better?

I personally don't feel we have a significant issue with policing in the United Kingdom. In comparison to other countries policing here is considered the gold standard. There is always room for improvement though so I will await your suggestions.

 

[TheReligion]

How many times is a taser utilised by police per week in the US?

This is the problem. He makes seemingly damning facts but they are constantly skewed and without any substance.

Anyone can throw out stats.

 

[Cassidy]

Tbf the guy asked for it, if you spat on an officer be sure they will rough you up. Cops are just human. Now killing him / shooting him / planting evidence is a different animal, but let's not assume all cops are patrons of justice.

If you didn't broke the law and be respectful towards society the chance of foul play is minimum.

I'm not saying this is the case here but time and time again this has been proven to be bullshit

 

[ROFLUTION]

So you expect cops to be armed with what? Bible? They are cops and cops needs arm to do their job.

Blame the individuals if found guilty, dont blame the tazers. A croocked cop can use 101 tools to harm a suspect with or withour tazer/guns/baton, a good cop will need it to safe lives, maintain order.

Yes a death is always a tragedy, but what about the cop lives? Do you expect them to maintain order with just their balls?

You're drawing a dangerous conclusion that those that counter checks the police are incompetent without any reasonable evidence to back your claim. The rules says that once a taser is fired there has to be reports, how is that irresponsible? That's as reasonable as it gets all over the world.

Tell me honestly, what do you expect police to do in that sort of situation? What are the flip side of the coin? Do you realises that if the criminals knows the cops are armed only with a baton it could get ugly? A fist fight is potentially more deadly than a taser.

I think this has been mentioned in a lot of ways in the forum already:

- Who's watching over the watchguards? Who's going through the reports?
Coming from Denmark, I actually don't know how your system works in England. Does the police want a bad report out in public? The answer, to me, seems to often be 'No' - why would they harm their own reputation? In almost every sector, whether it is the financial one, public ones or wherever, investigating unindependently about yourself are rarely a good thing. Often a complete bullshit-thing, and as seen with Hillsborough, it can go very very deep with the covering up of things. Especially when it gets to be a public matter of saving face.

- Who would want to file in a negative report about themselves, when you can get away with not telling the full story?
If there isn't a lot of transparency / 'watching over the watchguards' in the system, I'd imagine a police-officer was both regretful for what he'd done, but also protective about himself.

 

[witchtrials]

You have decided the IPCC is unfit for purpose so surely it's best you suggest how you would make it better?

I personally don't feel we have a significant issue with policing in the United Kingdom. In comparison to other countries policing here is considered the gold standard. There is always room for improvement though so I will await your suggestions.

Just a few days ago the IPCC had to apologise to the London firefighter Edric Kennedy-Macfoy after they failed to offer any evidence against officers who he claims tasered and racially abused him - an incident for which the police have already paid him compensation - because of "procedural shortfalls". Is that your idea of "gold standard"? Really? Because to most people it looks like extreme unaccountability.

You keep talking vaguely about opinions and facts but you seem extremely incurious when presented with real life examples of problems with UK policing:

• You think we shouldn't be able to discuss Hillsborough as an example of police misconduct against innocent people (for reasons you won't even explain)
• The killing of Chistopher Alder doesn't count because it happened a few years ago (even though you haven't identified a single subsequent improvement in accountability)
• You won't acknowledge that Cornelius Thomas was mistreated, because the police have settled out of court so they don't have to release the facts (I notice you haven't got any alternative explanation for why the police paid compensation)
• You're happy to completely ignore the damning parliamentary Home Affairs Committee report into police accountability that I mentioned and declare the policing system "gold standard" without addressing a single element of it

Basically, as far as your concerned if you've got something critical to say about police conduct, you don't count.

Since you ask here are a just a couple of ways the IPCC should be reformed to increase police accountability:

• The IPCC should receive a substantial increase in funding and resources so it can begin to properly investigate allegations of misconduct. As the HAC report concludes, the IPCC "lacks the investigative resources necessary to get to the truth" - this is surely unacceptable by anyone's standards
• The number of ex-police investigating their former colleagues should be massively reduced. As the report says, we can't have public confidence in police accountability whilst the IPCC is "a second home for police officers", with ex-officers investigating their former colleagues

 

[TheReligion]

Just a few days ago the IPCC had to apologise to the London firefighter Edric Kennedy-Macfoy after they failed to offer any evidence against officers who he claims tasered and racially abused him - an incident for which the police have already paid him compensation - because of "procedural shortfalls". Is that your idea of "gold standard"? Really? Because to most people it looks like extreme unaccountability.

You keep talking vaguely about opinions and facts but you seem extremely incurious when presented with real life examples of problems with UK policing:

• You think we shouldn't be able to discuss Hillsborough as an example of police misconduct against innocent people (for reasons you won't even explain)
• The killing of Chistopher Alder doesn't count because it happened a few years ago (even though you haven't identified a single subsequent improvement in accountability)
• You won't acknowledge that Cornelius Thomas was mistreated, because the police have settled out of court so they don't have to release the facts (I notice you haven't got any alternative explanation for why the police paid compensation)
• You're happy to completely ignore the damning parliamentary Home Affairs Committee report into police accountability that I mentioned and declare the policing system "gold standard" without addressing a single element of it

Basically, as far as your concerned if you've got something critical to say about police conduct, you don't count.

Since you ask here are a just a couple of ways the IPCC should be reformed to increase police accountability:

• The IPCC should receive a substantial increase in funding and resources so it can begin to properly investigate allegations of misconduct. As the HAC report concludes, the IPCC "lacks the investigative resources necessary to get to the truth" - this is surely unacceptable by anyone's standards
• The number of ex-police investigating their former colleagues should be massively reduced. As the report says, we can't have public confidence in police accountability whilst the IPCC is "a second home for police officers", with ex-officers investigating their former colleagues

I have no issue in discussing Hillsborough. I just find it bizarre that it was brought up so quickly after the death of Atkinson. Seems like I wasn't the only one either given the amount of flack you've taken for going on about it.

In relation to your other points:

1) How can you or I acknowledge if Shaw was mistreated without knowing the full story of what happened.

2) I didn't say the death of Alder 'did not matter' (you seem to be making things up now) I simply mentioned you're taking about modem day issues within the police but using examples almost 20 years old.

3) Policing in the UK is seen as the best in the world. That's not to say it's perfect and that there aren't bad apples in amongst the good ones. I think it's silly to suggest policing hasn't changed for the better post PACE 1984 though.

In relation to the IPCC.

There's no money in policing at the moment. Get the government to invest in both the police service and IPCC and you'll see things improve further. I'm all for that.

With regards to ex-cops investigating others give me some evidence that it's a problem? Or just your opinion?

 

[Prodigal7]

And role on the usual anti-establishment sentiment. No system is perfect but our police force is widely regarded as one of the best in the world. This whole debate just smacks of the way over the top blame culture in this country, i.e. the establishment is always shit.

 

[witchtrials]

I have no issue in discussing Hillsborough

Good - you'll acknowledge then that it's a prime example for demonstrating how it's complete nonsense for someone to say that you can avoid police misconduct by being well-behaved and respectful.

In relation to your other points:

1) How can you or I acknowledge if Shaw was mistreated without knowing the full story of what happened.

2) I didn't say the death of Alder 'did not matter' (you seem to be making things up now) I simply mentioned you're taking about modem day issues within the police but using examples almost 20 years old.

3) Policing in the UK is seen as the best in the world. That's not to say it's perfect and that there aren't bad apples in amongst the good ones. I think it's silly to suggest policing hasn't changed for the better post PACE 1984 though.

In relation to the IPCC.

There's no money in policing at the moment. Get the government to invest in both the police service and IPCC and you'll see things improve further. I'm all for that.

With regards to ex-cops investigating others give me some evidence that it's a problem? Or just your opinion?

1. Who is Shaw (are you thinking about the WMP Chief Constable)? Are you talking about Cornelius Thomas? If so, what is your explanation for why the police would pay a large sum of compensation to him? You were just saying that there is not enough money in policing so it seems really strange that WMP would just give the guy a load of money for no reason.

2. Someone raised the death of Christopher Alder as an example of people being killed in police custody - all you had to say about it was that it was a few years ago. You didn't offer a single word on what has changed to make sure that other things like that aren't happening now and couldn't happen again. Throughout the thread you've brushed aside any actual cases of police conduct that people have raised. It's great that you want to talk about more recent examples of deaths in custody though: we can discuss whether Sean Rigg's death in custody was another example of "gold standard policing".

3. Christopher Alder was killed in custody in 1998. The Hillsborough disaster was in 1989 and the cover-up has continued until this year. That things were even worse before PACE is no excuse at all for not having an adequate system of police accountability today.

Not sure that the old "good and bad apples" cliche is the most helpful way of thinking about things really - what matters is having the adequate protections for the public within police practices and having a robust system to deal with officers when they don't respect them. Do you at least acknowledge that there need to be strong processes for making police accountable?

 

[Duafc]

And role on the usual anti-establishment sentiment. No system is perfect but our police force is widely regarded as one of the best in the world. This whole debate just smacks of the way over the top blame culture in this country, i.e. the establishment is always shit.

Nutshell.

The UKs police service is widely regarded as the gold standard. It's an area where there is always going to be intense scrutiny due to the nature of the work.

Personal injury, risk, death... Dealing with people who are violent, unwell, self harmers and with a disregard for the law is difficult and will result in tragedy. Police officers deal with that day and daily.

Of course there are plenty of examples of police officers acting improperly and in some instances despicably. In the large majority of these instances the individual officer is held to account both in a criminal court and through internal discipline. Whilst I agree the IPCC should have all it needs to investigate every instance thoroughly, I don't think they are quite as diabolical or bias as @witchtrials seems to suggest.

If they were there wouldn't be a widespread fear amongst police officers who come to second guess or doubt their instinct and actions for fear of reprisal or investigation... Not because they have anything to fear or hide 99% of the time but because a simple and honest misjudgement can see disasterous effects in what is now actually a hyper accountable profession.

 

[witchtrials]

In the large majority of these instances the individual officer is held to account both in a criminal court and through internal discipline. Whilst I agree the IPCC should have all it needs to investigate every instance thoroughly, I don't think they are quite as diabolical or bias as @witchtrials seems to suggest

I'm curious about what makes you think that misconduct is punished in the large majority of cases when the Home Affairs Committee report says that the IPCC is not "capable of delivering the kind of powerful, objective scrutiny that is needed to inspire that confidence", that its "oversight-lite" of many cases "is no better than a placebo", that is is "woefully underequipped and hamstrung", and that it "has neither the powers nor the resources that it needs to get to the truth when the integrity of the police is in doubt".

I think your view that existing system probably does a decent job is actually quite a common one, but when parliament's own committees make such damning claims I don't really understand how people can maintain that things are probably not that bad. At least I'd like to hear some convincing reasons why we should ignore a report like that.

 

[JustAFan]

Nutshell 2

Supposedly we all want to wait until the evidence is in to pass judgement but that has not stopped there being pages of debate often about things that in reality will have no bearing on whether or not the officers in this specific case acted appropriately or abused the weapons at their disposal resulting in a death.

 

[Welsh Wonder]

For what it's worth (lots, I'm sure) I've been tased and hit with a baton and if I had to choose between them again, I'd choose being tased.

 

[witchtrials]

For what it's worth (lots, I'm sure) I've been tased and hit with a baton and if I had to choose between them again, I'd choose being tased.

Did you voluntary get tased in the spirit of scientific curiosity or are you just a veteran rogue?

 

[Welsh Wonder]

Did you volultary get tased in the spirit of scientific curiosity or are you just a veteran rogue?

To be fair if I remember right the taser incident was my mate fecking round with a homemade one. Silly idea really, in hindsight.

I'm a changed man now, no tasering or getting leathered with batons for me.

 

[Duafc]

I'm curious about what makes you think that misconduct is punished in the large majority of cases when the Home Affairs Committee report says that the IPCC is not "capable of delivering the kind of powerful, objective scrutiny that is needed to inspire that confidence", that its "oversight-lite" of many cases "is no better than a placebo", that is is "woefully underequipped and hamstrung", and that it "has neither the powers nor the resources that it needs to get to the truth when the integrity of the police is in doubt".

I think your view that existing system probably does a decent job is actually quite a common one, but when parliament's own committees make such damning claims I don't really understand how people can maintain that things are probably not that bad. At least I'd like to hear some convincing reasons why we should ignore a report like that.

Well I've not said we should ignore it, I've said twice that the IPCC should have all it needs to be totally objective and thorough in each case.

However I'm absolutely sure you could find multiple reports of a similar ilk stating that the NHS isn't fit for purpose, over budget, under resourced etc. That the education system is flawed, lacks investment and fails a large portion of our young people.

It's a fact of life when it comes to the public sector. The evidence I would much rather rely on are not the opinions of a committee report but the simple fact that policing in the UK is of an extremely high standard. We also have an extremely high level of accountability and transparency in comparison to the rest of the world... Whether you disagree or think it could still be higher is fine.

Ultimately there will always be bad people in positions of responsibility resulting in scandalous reports or articles that bring the entire service into disrepute, it's not a new thing and it's damn hard to avoid. Broadly though the emmergency services and wider justice system in the Uk is something to be proud of in my opinion, like the NHS and other public bodies.

I don't really care to talk about it with you any further because you clearly have a made up mind and I don't disagree that the IPCC should have all it needs, but would like you to consider that people in every area of the public sector would wish for more funding, more power, more autonomy etc.

As an aside I find your manner in this thread to be passive aggressive and condescending.

 

[witchtrials]

As an aside I find your manner in this thread to be passive aggressive and condescending.

To be honest that's probably not entirely unfair, in time-honoured playground squabble style I'd like to point out that I didn't start it!

 

[TheReligion]

And role on the usual anti-establishment sentiment. No system is perfect but our police force is widely regarded as one of the best in the world. This whole debate just smacks of the way over the top blame culture in this country, i.e. the establishment is always shit.

Nutshell.

The UKs police service is widely regarded as the gold standard. It's an area where there is always going to be intense scrutiny due to the nature of the work.

Personal injury, risk, death... Dealing with people who are violent, unwell, self harmers and with a disregard for the law is difficult and will result in tragedy. Police officers deal with that day and daily.

Of course there are plenty of examples of police officers acting improperly and in some instances despicably. In the large majority of these instances the individual officer is held to account both in a criminal court and through internal discipline. Whilst I agree the IPCC should have all it needs to investigate every instance thoroughly, I don't think they are quite as diabolical or bias as @witchtrials seems to suggest.

If they were there wouldn't be a widespread fear amongst police officers who come to second guess or doubt their instinct and actions for fear of reprisal or investigation... Not because they have anything to fear or hide 99% of the time but because a simple and honest misjudgement can see disasterous effects in what is now actually a hyper accountable profession.

Nutshell 2

Supposedly we all want to wait until the evidence is in to pass judgement but that has not stopped there being pages of debate often about things that in reality will have no bearing on whether or not the officers in this specific case acted appropriately or abused the weapons at their disposal resulting in a death.

For what it's worth (lots, I'm sure) I've been tased and hit with a baton and if I had to choose between them again, I'd choose being tased.

Well I've not said we should ignore it, I've said twice that the IPCC should have all it needs to be totally objective and thorough in each case.

However I'm absolutely sure you could find multiple reports of a similar ilk stating that the NHS isn't fit for purpose, over budget, under resourced etc. That the education system is flawed, lacks investment and fails a large portion of our young people.

It's a fact of life when it comes to the public sector. The evidence I would much rather rely on are not the opinions of a committee report but the simple fact that policing in the UK is of an extremely high standard. We also have an extremely high level of accountability and transparency in comparison to the rest of the world... Whether you disagree or think it could still be higher is fine.

Ultimately there will always be bad people in positions of responsibility resulting in scandalous reports or articles that bring the entire service into disrepute, it's not a new thing and it's damn hard to avoid. Broadly though the emmergency services and wider justice system in the Uk is something to be proud of in my opinion, like the NHS and other public bodies.

I don't really care to talk about it with you any further because you clearly have a made up mind and I don't disagree that the IPCC should have all it needs, but would like you to consider that people in every area of the public sector would wish for more funding, more power, more autonomy etc.

As an aside I find your manner in this thread to be passive aggressive and condescending.

Thank God I'm not alone in the common sense department! @witchtrials see the above.

With regards to the rest of what you're going on about to be honest I've lost track of your argument.

1) No one knows if there was any wrong doing in the death of Atkinson. No one should cast judgement either way. Any investigation will take time and I'm confident there will be justification in the use of taser.

2) Deaths in police custody or even contact police deaths will always happen. That doesn't mean there is always someone to blame.

3) Policing in the UK as said previously is regarded as the world's best. You can disagree but as you can see I'm far from alone in that opinion. Student officers from all over the world come to see how UK officers work.

4) Nothing is perfect. As with any public service there is scrutiny and rightly so. The IPCC wants the best investigators so naturally those with a background in policing will be selected. Each force has their own complaints and disciplinary department in addition and if you think it's all friendly fun and games you're sadly mistaken.

5) Like it or not policing has improved drastically in the UK since the introduction of PACE and the Human Rights Act. You speak like the UK police service is corrupt and not fit to function. You're wrong.

 

[ravelston]

How many times is a taser utilised by police per week in the US?

Taser gave a figure of around 2.9 million uses as of November 2015 - so we're probably at around 3 million currently. At the time of the Brewer report (their data ran up to 2006) there had been 1.4 million uses (from a start date of 1983). (In that time there were 12 instances when a Taser (or other CEW) appeared to be the probable cause of death.) For the total usage data to make sense I think you have to be looking at something like 5,000 per week on average - probably at bit more now and a bit less earlier. It's worth remembering that these data refer to Taser discharges: in the equivalent UK data, usage refers to any instance when an officer draws a Taser - only in around 20% of those cases is the Taser discharged. Thus, in 2014, there were 10,000 usages but only 2,000 cases where an individual was actually Tased.

 

[Rado_N]

Taser gave a figure of around 2.9 million uses as of November 2015 - so we're probably at around 3 million currently. At the time of the Brewer report (their data ran up to 2006) there had been 1.4 million uses (from a start date of 1983). (In that time there were 12 instances when a Taser (or other CEW) appeared to be the probable cause of death.) For the total usage data to make sense I think you have to be looking at something like 5,000 per week on average - probably at bit more now and a bit less earlier. It's worth remembering that these data refer to Taser discharges: in the equivalent UK data, usage refers to any instance when an officer draws a Taser - only in around 20% of those cases is the Taser discharged. Thus, in 2014, there were 10,000 usages but only 2,000 cases where an individual was actually Tased.

So a miniscule rate of death.

 

[ravelston]

So a miniscule rate of death.

Yes. They looked quite carefully at data from Jan 2001 to Dec 2006. They could track around 600,000 uses of a Taser. In the period they identified 301 Arrest Related Deaths (ARDs) in incidents where a Taser had been employed. Of those 39 were identified where the Medical Examiners thought that the Taser was a possible contributory factor, and of that 39 there were 4 where the Taser was considered to be the probable cause of death. It was at around that time that an abundance of data on the effect of electric shocks on the heart became available - implantable defibrillators were becoming quite common and every time one was implanted the recipient's heart was shocked to stop it so they could see if the device worked. With a million plus observations they could make some pretty definitive statements about the reaction of the heart to shocks. For the Taser analysis, the most important observation was that, if the shock was going to put the recipient into V Fib, it happened within 5 seconds - not a half hour later. So if the heart isn't stopped by the shock, any later problem is likely to be from causes other than the Taser. (Most commonly as a result of whatever chemical intoxication provoked the confused and/or psychotic behaviour that led to the use of the Taser in the first place.) So the 35 "possible" observations that were eliminated were eliminated because the pattern of symptoms were not consistent with the (by now) known effects of shocks on the heart.

 

[Loon]

Main man of the last really great Villa side which ran us all the way in '93. Such a terrible way to die.

 

[Jep]

I'm curious about what makes you think that misconduct is punished in the large majority of cases when the Home Affairs Committee report says that the IPCC is not "capable of delivering the kind of powerful, objective scrutiny that is needed to inspire that confidence", that its "oversight-lite" of many cases "is no better than a placebo", that is is "woefully underequipped and hamstrung", and that it "has neither the powers nor the resources that it needs to get to the truth when the integrity of the police is in doubt".

I think your view that existing system probably does a decent job is actually quite a common one, but when parliament's own committees make such damning claims I don't really understand how people can maintain that things are probably not that bad. At least I'd like to hear some convincing reasons why we should ignore a report like that.

If parliament think the IPCC is so bad then why don't they introduce a powerful regulatory body like they did with the NII (now ONR) for nuclear facilities? Whilst it is also worth noting it is easy for a parliament committee to apportion blame anywhere apart from their own doorstep especially in fields they are potentially not experienced/knowledgeable in.

Any findings from police investigations should be made public; the nuclear industry are very open when incidents occur as they use it for operational experience to try and prevent it occurring again.

 

[Dobba]

Two West Mercia police officers are under criminal investigation and have been served with gross misconduct notices over the incident.

 

[TheReligion]

Two West Mercia police officers are under criminal investigation and have been served with gross misconduct notices over the incident.

Standard procedure

 

[Jippy]

I'm curious about what makes you think that misconduct is punished in the large majority of cases when the Home Affairs Committee report says that the IPCC is not "capable of delivering the kind of powerful, objective scrutiny that is needed to inspire that confidence", that its "oversight-lite" of many cases "is no better than a placebo", that is is "woefully underequipped and hamstrung", and that it "has neither the powers nor the resources that it needs to get to the truth when the integrity of the police is in doubt".

I think your view that existing system probably does a decent job is actually quite a common one, but when parliament's own committees make such damning claims I don't really understand how people can maintain that things are probably not that bad. At least I'd like to hear some convincing reasons why we should ignore a report like that.

You are referencing this report, but are parliament so critical of the IPCC, why don't they improve the funding for both it and the police?
I've covered plenty of parliamentary committee proceedings and reports. Remember they are staffed by laymen and although many members are well-meaning, others favour the point-scoring firebrand in a kangaroo court approach.

I can see why you think @TheReligion is dismissive of certain incidents, even where compensation has been paid out, but equally I can understand his frustration with your apparent incomprehension or total disregard of the extreme pressure police are under in these situations. Not least the potential, even if only perceived, danger they are in.
You're bringing up a handful of incidents spread over two decades. No-one denies they are tragic, but what is the death rate of those taken into custody? 0.01%?

 

[Mozza]

The taser allows a copper to hit a member of the public with little physical danger to themselves therefore there is very little consequence of using it. With a baton a policeman may seek another way to resolve the conflict as they themselves will be in danger.

 

[JustAFan]

The taser allows a copper to hit a member of the public with little physical danger to themselves therefore there is very little consequence of using it. With a baton a policeman may seek another way to resolve the conflict as they themselves will be in danger.

So you are saying cops should only be given tools to use if using the tools puts themselves in even more danger?

 

[Lostie007]

Main man of the last really great Villa side which ran us all the way in '93. Such a terrible way to die.

him and Saunders was the Premier Leagues first great strike partnership before Shearer and Sutton, Yorke and Cole and all

 

[red_devil83]

Two West Mercia police officers are under criminal investigation and have been served with gross misconduct notices over the incident.

100% nothing will happen to them

 

[TheReligion]

100% nothing will happen to them

Why? Should something happen to them? Do share. .

 

[red_devil83]

Why? Should something happen to them? Do share. .

Regardless of if they turn out to be guilty, nothing will happen. Look at the case of that London fireman -Edric Kennedy-Macfoy. The IPCC managed to cock it up despite finding all 6 guilty.

 

[sparky]

You get bad eggs in all walks. It does not mean everyone is. Those that are should rightly be called out and punished but to assume things before all facts are available is wrong. No-one knows what the build up was or what happened before the taser was deployed. I note some witnesses claim it looked like Police kicked him. Well to be fair, if someone was making threats and behaving erratically I would not want to bend down and put myself in danger to check on the person. A touch with the foot is safer as your most vunerable area is at a distance. Sadly there are some dangerous people out there who will do anything to harm/get the upper hand and can turn violent in a flash. Am not saying he was on NPS but I have seen alot of incidents of people who are on it, they do not care, will bite you, stab you and more at the drop of a hat.

 

[Mozza]

So you are saying cops should only be given tools to use if using the tools puts themselves in even more danger?

No I'm saying tasers aren't often used as a last resort as the result of using one has little downside for the police. They need better training and body camaras so they know their actions will be reviewed with indepent evidence