A man has died after he was shot by a police stun gun in Bedford (UK)

Officers were called to a house in The Spinney after reports of a domestic dispute between a mother and her son.

The man, aged in his 30s and who was suffering from an injury, threatened officers with a knife and was shot with the Taser gun on Saturday, police said.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) has been informed. A post-mortem examination on the man's body is expected on Monday.

The man was outside when officers arrived at about 1900 GMT but retreated inside the house after being shot with the stun gun.

Officers followed the man into the house where they found him injured and in need of medical treatment.

He was taken to Bedford South Hospital, where he was pronounced dead.

The police have been using those tasers like they were benign.  They are hand held electric chairs is what they are.  Someone with a heart arrhythmia could easily die, when I see people getting hit multiple times it makes me cringe.

There was a really high profile taser death at Vancouver Intl Airport a few months ago. A Polish man who had just arrived to join his mother in Canada and didn't speak or understand a word of English had been mishandled at immigration, and as a result he had waited in Immigration Canada terminal for over 7 hours without speaking to anyone.

So after a while he starts to get a little annoyed and he started to throw a fit. So like 5 RCMP officers confront him, and instead of trying to physically restrain him, they shot him with the taser gun. He died, and it was all caught on video by a guy with a cell phone.

The whole affair started the controversy over tasers, especially since in the same week there was another taser death in Nova Scotia.

I hate to see the know-how disappearing from British police.  You got a daffy bloke waving a knife around, one cop would tackle him and the other would cave his skull in with a nightstick!

A man has died after he was shot by a police stun gun in Bedford (UK)

Officers were called to a house in The Spinney after reports of a domestic dispute between a mother and her son.

The man, aged in his 30s and who was suffering from an injury, threatened officers with a knife and was shot with the Taser gun on Saturday, police said.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) has been informed. A post-mortem examination on the man's body is expected on Monday.

The man was outside when officers arrived at about 1900 GMT but retreated inside the house after being shot with the stun gun.

Officers followed the man into the house where they found him injured and in need of medical treatment.

He was taken to Bedford South Hospital, where he was pronounced dead.




That'll teach him...anyone with half a brain who wants to cause a scene from holding another hostage to threating a cop with a weapon..in LA they are taught to shot mulitple times, not think if they shoot them in the leg to stop them...it's a persons job to control their temper and actions!  If they(police) acted in haste, then something is wrong with the training..but I wouldn't stand around waiting to give the criminal a pillow to sit on while he thinks what his next move is...

  Don't get me wrong, here.  I see the conundrum.  Police might cite adrenaline, or fear, or any number of factors, but is it really too much to ask that the police know who they're engaging?  In general, the rush to exonerate the police on principle often overlooks the idea that among the obligations of being a police officer is that one must endure extraordinary danger in the line of duty...

  If policy or sentiment elevates the protectors of society to such a point that they should cause danger to society or its members in order to protect themselves first and foremost, are they really protecting anything but themselves?  Are they really, at that point, performing the service they've asked to be entrusted with?  If the cops expect to do dangerous work without ever having to face danger, they ought not be cops...

  Two questions that are easier to ask than to answer:

  1. When is it a police officer's job to kill someone..?

  2. When is it a police officer's job to die..?

   Two questions that are easier to ask than to answer:

   1. When is it a police officer's job to kill someone..?

   2. When is it a police officer's job to die..?


1: When they have no other options left to secure or subdue someone who is an immediate and life-threatening danger to other people, including the officer.

2: When he decides that becoming footage for officer training films is a better option than retirement. Alternatively, heroic rescue: i.e., saving another's life at the expense of his own.

Being a cop is still dangerous: tonight's 11 o clock news headlines were "Officer involved shooting" (of a suspect) and 'funeral for police officer'.

Oddly, I find myself in agreeance with saver's post. Using a firearm to bring down a suspect almost always results in death, if done according to the officer's training. Nobody is trained to "shoot to wound". Sure, we've seen footage of SWAT sharpshooters blowing the pistol out of a suicidal man's hand, but that is the exception, not the rule. Firing a weapon is hard enough under duress, and aiming at hands or feet will more than likely only result in misses and dead cops.

saver is also correct with his somewhat amusing 'give the criminal a pillow' line. The last thing you want to do is create a hostage situation.

I'm not saying stun weapons are safe by any means nor that they aren't misused, but what alternatives are there for quickly neutralizing a suspect armed with a knife?:

~Pepper spray: At best, causes temporary blindness and extreme pain. Using it on someone armed with a knife may result in them slashing wildy, and now you have a totally unpredictable and pissed off armed guy. Not good. At least it can be used from a distance, though failing to factor in wind or bystanders may prove disastrous.

~Nightsticks: Must get close to use. Use on the head or neck has the potential for severe injury to the suspect. Broken bones are not uncommon. Effectiveness varies a great deal depending on several factors...

~Firearms: Already covered this above. Usually the last resort, and usually fatal. Has the potential to hit bystanders. It has been proven many times that a suspect armed with a knife, if within 20', can close that distance and strike before you have a chance to pull your weapon. The old addage "Never bring a knife to a gun fight" is not true. An officer in physical contact with the suspect stands a not-less-than-zero-chance of getting his own weapon used against him/her.

~Less than lethal means: shotgun or rocket launched nets, rubber bullets, bean bags and so on are, unfortunately, expensive. These are weapons of the future, and though they are almost here, they still are not widely used. Note than people have died from so-called "safe bullets".

~Running him over with you vehicle: Only possible if he's in the open and not near anyone else or anything that might serve to protect him.

~Physical takedown: A knife will penetrate a lower level bulletproof vest, that's if the officer is wearing one. Without an element of surprise, this is an extremely dangerous maneuver. There is substantial risk to the officer, and there's no guarantee the suspect wouldn't fall onto his own knife, causing serious injury.


Now, the taser:

Has a range of 20' or more. More or less instant immobilization of anyone once the juice is flowing. Little risk to the officer, bystanders or the suspect. Usually nonfatal.

I'm not defending the police here. Tasers aren't always used in a manner in which they should be. I've seen footage of police misusing and overusing them.

There should be rules in every dept. regarding taser use. Would I use one on a knife-weilding suspect if we were one-on-one? Probably so, if not something far worse for him.

Would I use it on an incoherent, unarmed man at an airport with 3 or 4 other airport cops with me? No. Potential punches and bruises heal. Take your licks. A cop is basically a state bouncer. Outside of the movies, I've never seen a 5 on 1 go in favor of the 1. Call for backup: that is your greatest asset, your fellow officer.

Using a taser when less drastic means are needed is lazy and irresponsible.

As for Philip's story, just on what I've read here, I would say that the use of a taser was justified. The end result was tragic, but at this point there is no evidence to suggest the taser is what caused his death. I would like to see a follow up or more news on this story: first reports are sometimes wildly inaccurate.

Ant

Not knowing the inner training of officers either, but they may have to learn a special course(or do they), on how to deal with an armed mentally ill person.

Again a big lawsuit against LAOD for shooting a nutty woman with a knife or screwdriver..they killed her and the family is up in arms, why not distract her?Why not rush her?
Should they maybe have a wire netted suit in their car trunks or throw a net over the person? Does one cop have to be the guinnea pig if they circle her and she slashes  away? Is there a certain age where they can overpower the loon?   

Also the criminal may be working off adrenaline and when mixed with a taser shot, may go into cardiac arrest from the combination of overloaded energy..people are know to give themselves a heart attack in dangerous times-like if a plane is falling from the sky, M.D.'s have said the person died from Heart attack in cases, as well as building jumpers having an attack before hitting the pavement. It's a mind/body thing. 

1: When they have no other options left to secure or subdue someone who is an immediate and life-threatening danger to other people, including the officer.

2: When he decides that becoming footage for officer training films is a better option than retirement. Alternatively, heroic rescue: i.e., saving another's life at the expense of his own.

Being a cop is still dangerous: tonight's 11 o clock news headlines were "Officer involved shooting" (of a suspect) and 'funeral for police officer'.

Oddly, I find myself in agreeance with saver's post. Using a firearm to bring down a suspect almost always results in death, if done according to the officer's training. Nobody is trained to "shoot to wound". Sure, we've seen footage of SWAT sharpshooters blowing the pistol out of a suicidal man's hand, but that is the exception, not the rule. Firing a weapon is hard enough under duress, and aiming at hands or feet will more than likely only result in misses and dead cops.

saver is also correct with his somewhat amusing 'give the criminal a pillow' line. The last thing you want to do is create a hostage situation.

I'm not saying stun weapons are safe by any means nor that they aren't misused, but what alternatives are there for quickly neutralizing a suspect armed with a knife?:

~Pepper spray: At best, causes temporary blindness and extreme pain. Using it on someone armed with a knife may result in them slashing wildy, and now you have a totally unpredictable and pissed off armed guy. Not good. At least it can be used from a distance, though failing to factor in wind or bystanders may prove disastrous.

~Nightsticks: Must get close to use. Use on the head or neck has the potential for severe injury to the suspect. Broken bones are not uncommon. Effectiveness varies a great deal depending on several factors...

~Firearms: Already covered this above. Usually the last resort, and usually fatal. Has the potential to hit bystanders. It has been proven many times that a suspect armed with a knife, if within 20', can close that distance and strike before you have a chance to pull your weapon. The old addage "Never bring a knife to a gun fight" is not true. An officer in physical contact with the suspect stands a not-less-than-zero-chance of getting his own weapon used against him/her.

~Less than lethal means: shotgun or rocket launched nets, rubber bullets, bean bags and so on are, unfortunately, expensive. These are weapons of the future, and though they are almost here, they still are not widely used. Note than people have died from so-called "safe bullets".

~Running him over with you vehicle: Only possible if he's in the open and not near anyone else or anything that might serve to protect him.

~Physical takedown: A knife will penetrate a lower level bulletproof vest, that's if the officer is wearing one. Without an element of surprise, this is an extremely dangerous maneuver. There is substantial risk to the officer, and there's no guarantee the suspect wouldn't fall onto his own knife, causing serious injury.


Now, the taser:

Has a range of 20' or more. More or less instant immobilization of anyone once the juice is flowing. Little risk to the officer, bystanders or the suspect. Usually nonfatal.

I'm not defending the police here. Tasers aren't always used in a manner in which they should be. I've seen footage of police misusing and overusing them.

There should be rules in every dept. regarding taser use. Would I use one on a knife-weilding suspect if we were one-on-one? Probably so, if not something far worse for him.

Would I use it on an incoherent, unarmed man at an airport with 3 or 4 other airport cops with me? No. Potential punches and bruises heal. Take your licks. A cop is basically a state bouncer. Outside of the movies, I've never seen a 5 on 1 go in favor of the 1. Call for backup: that is your greatest asset, your fellow officer.

Using a taser when less drastic means are needed is lazy and irresponsible.

As for Philip's story, just on what I've read here, I would say that the use of a taser was justified. The end result was tragic, but at this point there is no evidence to suggest the taser is what caused his death. I would like to see a follow up or more news on this story: first reports are sometimes wildly inaccurate.

Ant








   I've read reports where the guy actually killed himself after being tasered and running into the house.  I'm pretty sure a probe is underway so we'll know more then...

   I've seen people who aren't cops take it under difficult circumstances.  I once watched a severely-disturbed high school student try to beat the crap out of the vice-principal.  The man was 6'4, over 200 pounds, and he just stood there and took it. (This kid was not a threat, in his opinion.)  And I admire him for that decision.  Tasers weren't big at the time, so I guess the cops would have just shot the kid...

   To the other, police have many strange pressures to deal with.  Several years ago, the Seattle Police Department handled a crazy man with a sword the calm, rational way.  They tried everything, including gas and hoses.  In the end, they got him, alive, well, and shaking cold.  It took eleven hours.  The public outcry was amazing, and SPD has since accommodated the demand, preferring instead to simply shoot the insane...

   I prefer nonlethal solutions, but these require a certain amount of unique discretion, especially something like a Taser.  Like I've said before the attitudes of law enforcement in this area presents a sticky compromise: they may be brutal idiots, so Tasers and gas are a godsend compared to just shooting people but Tasers, apparently, exist to make life easier for cops...

   Police should be able to make certain distinctions regarding the people and suspects they encounter, but that makes the job harder and takes all the fun out of it...

 

  Edited to add: And to savers post, I dismiss out of hand pretty much everything he says.  Our differences are so fundamental they won’t yield to any amount of negotiation...

   

I don't think anyone argues about the use of tasers, it is the misuse.  Police misuse them in cases when trained negotiation or physical force such as that employed by the principal was more than adequate.  It is my opinion that with the all the lip service about qualifications to get into the police force, they seem to be woefully undereducated once they have gotten in.  The physical standard is also allowed to slip once they have left the academy.

It used to seem that a taser is better to use than a gun, but then cases like this really make you wonder

this is from some random blog. wiser and more urgent words than i could come up with.

"Now that we've heard from TASER representatives (that's NASDAQ trading symbol TASR), let a human comment on this article, unpaid.

Has anyone ever read that Stanford University psychology experiment in which students (at no risk to themselves) are allowed punish people up to the point of death by electrical shock? The students believe that they are administering this shock for wrong answers as form of operant conditioning. What they failed to realize was that they were the subjects of the experiment. How far would they go to conform to authority's notions of right and wrong, without criticism?

Unfortunately, our society is up to its eyebrows in such conformists. There is a milling herd of them willing to use prods on the rest of the cattle, if they can figure out how the thing works. The steer with the prod gets to stand upright for a few minutes.

But then it's off to the slaughterhouse for all of those not left lying in manure after the shocking. That includes the prodder.

The Taser is the symptom of a very bad society in the process of becoming worse."

   I've read reports where the guy actually killed himself after being tasered and running into the house.  I'm pretty sure a probe is underway so we'll know more then...

   I've seen people who aren't cops take it under difficult circumstances.  I once watched a severely-disturbed high school student try to beat the crap out of the vice-principal.  The man was 6'4, over 200 pounds, and he just stood there and took it. (This kid was not a threat, in his opinion.)  And I admire him for that decision.  Tasers weren't big at the time, so I guess the cops would have just shot the kid...

   To the other, police have many strange pressures to deal with.  Several years ago, the Seattle Police Department handled a crazy man with a sword the calm, rational way.  They tried everything, including gas and hoses.  In the end, they got him, alive, well, and shaking cold.  It took eleven hours.  The public outcry was amazing, and SPD has since accommodated the demand, preferring instead to simply shoot the insane...

   I prefer nonlethal solutions, but these require a certain amount of unique discretion, especially something like a Taser.  Like I've said before the attitudes of law enforcement in this area presents a sticky compromise: they may be brutal idiots, so Tasers and gas are a godsend compared to just shooting people but Tasers, apparently, exist to make life easier for cops...

   Police should be able to make certain distinctions regarding the people and suspects they encounter, but that makes the job harder and takes all the fun out of it...

   

   Edited to add: And to savers post, I dismiss out of hand pretty much everything he says.  Our differences are so fundamental they won’t yield to any amount of negotiation...

   


Yes, I would say there are 2 sides to every story, right and wrong.

I believe in justice(comments already made on threads regarding capital punishment),

I believe, you play by the rules or better have a good excuse to bend them(aka..latest tirade against the judge who at first ordered a 'criminal' not to as much as buy a lottery ticket, he did,  and gets to keep his million$ winnings-even though the judge told him he couldn't do what he did!)

I believe in dealing directly with illegal alien employers to help squash the influx-as the  'build a bigger fence' idea will not stop them fgrom getting  bigger ladder or from flinging people over the barrier.

I don't go for nonsensical solutions and support intelligently thought out/weighed against wasteful solutions that are found to be the better of the choices for the better of society.

I've seen liberalism in action that was not the best choices-save certain pet species before building a road through a much needed area,trees, and 'end the death penalty' and find it to be one big whine fest...(Sierra Club/greenpeace included committing eco-fraud and others buying into it),give everyone 'qualified' a gun-let the bad asses try and impose on my property and they'll learn real quick.

That's what I am about until a better arguement can be made..not rehashed 'if we get the guns out of peoples hands everything will be ok'...in that instance..