Rupert_Baehr Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 'Good faith' does not (or should not) supersede 'reasonable judgement'. What's the operational range of a taser? 10ft? 15 ft? Is this policeman saying that he could not tell the difference between the white cane carried by a blind man and a samurai sword at 15ft? How many blind people were involved in this incident? Policemen carry tasers for good reasons. - But those reasons do not (AFAIK) include: "So that they don't have to think before they use the weapon." According to the article, the victim 'walks at a snail's pace.' Yes, there have indeed been instances of people 'running amok' with swords, but there's a difference between somebody 'running amok' and a blind man tapping his way down the street. Consider a couple of Sir Robert Peel's principles: Principle 7 - “Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.” Well, this policeman was doing that, wasn't he? Principle 6 - “Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient.” "I came up behind this man who was proceeding along the road at a slow pace. I saw that he was carrying something which began with an 'S'. - It could have been a stick, or a sunflower but somebody had told me about a man with a samurai sword. I shouted at him to stop and then I shot him in the back with my taser. It was a clear case of self-defence, guv. There was nothing else I could have done." It appears the matter has been reported to the Police Complaints Commission. Perhaps they'll do something about it. - If they ignore it, the next thing you know you'll have policemen pushing people over and victims dying as a result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Prime Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 That's OK. I notice that you are the one resorting to insults immediatly you cannot come up with a sensible argument. So someone with a white stick shouldn't carry one in case the police mistake it for a sword? Or they should accept the fact that they may get shot without warning or tasered just because the police an't be bothered to do their jobs right? That's not acceptable to me nor I suspect to them. There are a lot more white cane users in the average town than samuri sword wielders. As well as them, there are other people with thin long objects, like I dunno, people with a broken ankle, or a boy scout, or someone who is generally infirm, or a litter picker... you know lots of people... should all these people really have to run the risk of being tasered just because someone os so incompetent they cannot see what's being carried? No. Someone said they were amazed at my stupidity because I dared to say it might not be like the press report, as amazing as that sounds I then retaliated in kind, get your facts straight. What's acceptable to you is irrelevant as it has nothing to do with you and until we see CCTV or something more substantial than the New York Times comparable yahoo report judgement should be withheld. Because I'm intelligent I'll wait to see for myself if some dim plod really did go mad in a gung ho desire to taser an innocent. If he did then I'll join the chorus of armchair police critics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Looks like a major and serious error by the Police. Surely there's guidance approaching suspects from the front, rather than behind? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 No, you're the stupid one. Without being there I give the copper the benefit of the doubt. There are variables like the angle from which the victim was seen, the lighting and the fact that the copper had no reason to disbelieve the eyewitness who assured him it was a sword. Coppers tend to find out about something called Turnbull rather quickly. Eyewitnesses are not at all reliable on very many things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Looks like a major and serious error by the Police. Surely there's guidance approaching suspects from the front, rather than behind? What do you do? shout "Wait..let me get past you".. ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Prime Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 'Good faith' does not (or should not) supersede 'reasonable judgement'. What's the operational range of a taser? 10ft? 15 ft? Is this policeman saying that he could not tell the difference between the white cane carried by a blind man and a samurai sword at 15ft? How many blind people were involved in this incident? Policemen carry tasers for good reasons. - But those reasons do not (AFAIK) include: "So that they don't have to think before they use the weapon." According to the article, the victim 'walks at a snail's pace.' Yes, there have indeed been instances of people 'running amok' with swords, but there's a difference between somebody 'running amok' and a blind man tapping his way down the street. Consider a couple of Sir Robert Peel's principles: Principle 7 - “Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.” Well, this policeman was doing that, wasn't he? Principle 6 - “Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient.” "I came up behind this man who was proceeding along the road at a slow pace. I saw that he was carrying something which began with an 'S'. - It could have been a stick, or a sunflower but somebody had told me about a man with a samurai sword. I shouted at him to stop and then I shot him in the back with my taser. It was a clear case of self-defence, guv. There was nothing else I could have done." It appears the matter has been reported to the Police Complaints Commission. Perhaps they'll do something about it. - If they ignore it, the next thing you know you'll have policemen pushing people over and victims dying as a result. And that extremist was sacked, he wasn't given a medal and told to carry on. Again, unless you were there you don't really have the right to make snap judgements. Alternatively you have the right but your judgement is of low value, like Sid from the tap room telling me he can re wire my house even though he's no qualified electrician. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnvqsos Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Well much of the debate on SF is on Clegg for example, the opinons rage but people only know certain parts of the tale. That's enough. On something like this I expect its more complicated than it sounds. Nobody has considered that a sword seen from a certain angle at a distance would resemble a thin white line. People seem to assume that it has to be wielded Raiders of the Lost Ark style before the taser could be used. This thread reminds me of that scene from Extras where Millman tells his agent and Barry that the press lie and the two thickies just look at him quizzically and Millman is amazed at their naivete. A policeman is a trained observer and whatever perspective chosen a sword and a stick should not be confused.It is the policeman who needs the white stick.If you are prepared to use a form of assault some warning or other protocol step should be executed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Prime Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Coppers tend to find out about something called Turnbull rather quickly. Eyewitnesses are not at all reliable on very many things. Of course not but for whatever reasons that cop made a judgement in error, not because he was a fanatic or some dimwit. If a doctor injures someone in hospital e.g. a similar situation where mistakes can be fatal or cause injury, is it because that doctor is thick or evil? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 No. Someone said they were amazed at my stupidity because I dared to say it might not be like the press report, as amazing as that sounds I then retaliated in kind, get your facts straight.. No. You retaliated against me, who never mentioned stupidity at all. That was someone else. I suggest you re-read what was said, you get your facts straight and I'll then be happy to accept your apology. What's acceptable to you is irrelevant as it has nothing to do with you . I hold a British passport - it's of immense relevance to me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Prime Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 A policeman is a trained observer and whatever perspective chosen a sword and a stick should not be confused.It is the policeman who needs the white stick.If you are prepared to use a form of assault some warning or other protocol step should be executed. Should not is not the same as could not. Obviously the yahoo account is 100% reliable, the cop is evil/thick and that's all there is to it, case closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.