Should the police be armed

[Musicman]

nobody has ever died as a DIRECT result of a taser discharge although I think someone has by falling and banging their head

Um, demonstrably false

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taser_safety_issues#Deaths_and_injuries_related_to_Taser_use

Between June 2001 and June 2007, there were at least 245 cases of deaths of subjects soon after having been shocked using Tasers.[83]

Of these cases:

In 7 cases, medical examiners said Tasers were a cause or a contributing factor or could not be ruled out as a cause of death.

In 16 cases coroners and other officials stated that a Taser was a secondary or contributory factor of death.

In dozens of cases, coroners cited excited delirium as cause of death. Excited delirium has been questioned as a medical diagnosis.[84]

Several deaths occurred as a result of injuries sustained in struggles. In a few of these cases head injury due to falling after being shocked contributed to later death. Some police departments, like that of Clearwater, Florida, have tried to eradicate such incidents by prohibiting taser use when the suspect is in danger of falling.[85]

A study published by the American Journal of Cardiology found that California police departments that introduced Tasers experienced significant increases in the numbers of in-custody sudden deaths and firearm deaths in the first full year following deployment. The rates declined to predeployment levels in subsequent years. No significant change in the number of officer injuries was found.[86]

USA: Stricter limits urged as deaths following police Taser use reach 500 [Amnesty International]

Most of the deaths have been attributed to other causes. However, medical examiners have listed Tasers as a cause or contributing factor in more than 60 deaths, and in a number of other cases the exact cause of death is unknown.

In two cases Taser International have lost product liability lawsuits in the US, since their claims that the weapons were non-lethal were proven false in a court of law.

Darryl Turner [age 16]

Robert Heston [age 40]

 

[DemiLion]

Don't the US use a different voltage weapon to us?

 

[cowasaki]

its worrying you think that this is understandable. The news reports this morning describe the guy actually arrested as 27 and drunk.

The guy tasered was 61 and disabled. I'm lost as to why he was perceived as a threat (so much so he was hit in the back).Or confused with the original suspect, with or without stick

Surely its a reasonably easy difference to tell. I'm more then happy to believe it was an accidental discharge, but why not just come clean and say that

We are not discussing the description of the man actually arrested against the man tasered but rather the man tasered against the description given of the offender by the person describing it. The age of the offender would only be known later.

 

[cowasaki]

Um, demonstrably false

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taser_safety_issues#Deaths_and_injuries_related_to_Taser_use




USA: Stricter limits urged as deaths following police Taser use reach 500 [Amnesty International]



In two cases Taser International have lost product liability lawsuits in the US, since their claims that the weapons were non-lethal were proven false in a court of law.

Darryl Turner [age 16]

Robert Heston [age 40]

So as I said nobody has been proven to have been killed directly by taser. The inability to say that taser wasn't the cause does not make it the cause.

Excited delirium is the cause of a lot of deaths of persons dealt with by police but this is due to their (usually) drug or similar use. The alternative is to stop police from dealing with deranged people and just let them get on with it! If someone has a knife etc then they should be thankful that the police have a non deadly option now.

 

[boyfalldown]

We are not discussing the description of the man actually arrested against the man tasered but rather the man tasered against the description given of the offender by the person describing it. The age of the offender would only be known later.

would it? neither you or I are privy to the description given to the police. It may well not of included his age, but equally it may well of included something like 'adult male, in his late 20s or early 30s' Neither of us know that.

But it rather eludes my question, how exactly did the police decide that the old disable bloke walking away was a threat, and why is that understandable?

 

[boyfalldown]

So as I said nobody has been proven to have been killed directly by taser. The inability to say that taser wasn't the cause does not make it the cause.

come on. The court ruling in atleast one of those cases was because Taser knew their products could kill and didn't tell police. You're going down some very tenuous lines with anything else. It was 2005 that a medical examiner first ruled taser the primary cause of death

Its far better option then firearms, but its not a panacia

 

[cowasaki]

come on. The court ruling in atleast one of those cases was because Taser knew their products could kill and didn't tell police. You're going down some very tenuous lines with anything else. It was 2005 that a medical examiner first ruled taser the primary cause of death

Its far better option then firearms, but its not a panacia

There is nothing perfect but taser is the best thing yet. It is safer and more accurate than pava or cs spray and most people who it is pointed at give up at that point. There have not been any actually proved deaths but even if there were a few then how many of them would have been shot anyway.

 

[cowasaki]

would it? neither you or I are privy to the description given to the police. It may well not of included his age, but equally it may well of included something like 'adult male, in his late 20s or early 30s' Neither of us know that.

But it rather eludes my question, how exactly did the police decide that the old disable bloke walking away was a threat, and why is that understandable?

Shooting someone in the back is a perfectly acceptable thing to do if that person poses a serious threat to someone else. If the officer thought that this was the case then he would not have necessarily seen how old the chap was. If he matched the description, appeared to have a machete and ignored commands then that explains the situation. I'm not saying it is right just that it is not absolutely certainly a negligent or similar situation.

The police are not saying they were right either, there has been no cover up. They have apologised and he will no doubt get compo plus the officer in question will probably not carry it again.

We are all taking based on publicly available info. There might be more but that isn't out yet. I suppose we will find out more later

 

[boyfalldown]

There is nothing perfect but taser is the best thing yet. It is safer and more accurate than pava or cs spray and most people who it is pointed at give up at that point. There have not been any actually proved deaths but even if there were a few then how many of them would have been shot anyway.

I actually agree with you that nothings perfect and in itself taser is possibly the least bad option.

But your repeated assertion there have been no provable deaths just sounds like the cigarette industry when it used to argue there was no proof cigarettes don't cause lung cancer. The links above show taser has been sued sucessfully because its products can kill. There have been a good few cases worldwide where taser use has been the primary, or a major contributing cause of death.

Things like this

anuary 8, 2009, Martinsville, Virginia, a 17 year old boy, Derick Jones, was fatally tasered by officer R.L. Wray of the Martinsville Police Department. The autopsy revealed that Jones was in good health with a healthy heart and no pre-existing conditions, as well as no drugs other than alcohol in his system. The medical examiner ruled that his death was the result of a random cardiac arrhythmia, with no direct cause. However, she explicitly ruled out all direct causes of this arrhythmia except for the Taser, which she stated could not be definitively ruled out “as a causative or contributive factor” in Jones’ death. Critics have pointed to cases like these to show how Taser's aggressive litigation history involving medical examiners may have affected their rulings, or prevented them from decisively citing a Taser as the cause of death, despite the fact that all other causes were definitively ruled out

could go towards explaining why there aren't more. Some of those who died after taser use may well of been shot, but many were unarmed, in wheel chairs, handcuffed etc etc so I think its reasonable to assume some wouldn't either

 

[boyfalldown]

Shooting someone in the back is a perfectly acceptable thing to do if that person poses a serious threat to someone else. If the officer thought that this was the case then he would not have necessarily seen how old the chap was. If he matched the description, appeared to have a machete and ignored commands then that explains the situation. I'm not saying it is right just that it is not absolutely certainly a negligent or similar situation.

The police are not saying they were right either, there has been no cover up. They have apologised and he will no doubt get compo plus the officer in question will probably not carry it again.

We are all taking based on publicly available info. There might be more but that isn't out yet. I suppose we will find out more later

all of which is perfectly reasonable, but still dodges the fairly simple question, how exactly was the old, disabled, blind bloke moving at 'a snails pace' (his words) a threat to anyone, or how could he of been perceived as one?

 

[pepi1967]

Maybe because their bullet resistant vests aren't rated for white sticks :shrug:

 

[DemiLion]

Maybe because their bullet resistant vests aren't rated for white sticks :shrug:

They wouldn't be.

Stab/slash resistant vest are completely different from bullet proof ones. The two aren't interchangeable.

 

[Garry Edwards]

Maybe because their bullet resistant vests aren't rated for white sticks :shrug:

Let's lighten up a bit...

 

[pepi1967]

Let's lighten up a bit...

Hehe like it Gary

 

[donut]

its lucky he wasnt carrying any fresh fruit then


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piWCBOsJr-w

 

[Garry Edwards]

its lucky he wasnt carrying any fresh fruit then


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piWCBOsJr-w

 

[donut]

you'd have thought that sword would have made a cleaner cut than that !

 

[Forbiddenbiker]

... dunno, pretty sure you have to turn a samurai sideways to cut stuff

 

[MartynK]

Obviously not, and I'm not defending the actions of the police officer concerned, but I think it's easy to guess that having been told about someone who was potentially dangerous, it was reasonable for him to point the taser at him as a precaution, and that due to carelessness, adrenalin or simple error, the taser went off.

I do a lot of shooting with real guns, I usually fire around 150-200 rounds in a typical week, and I've had situations where I've pulled the trigger accidentally many times. In my case, the gun is always pointed in a safe direction at the time and the only consequence of my mistake has been to miss the clay that I expected to hit, but I can see how this particular accident could have happened - which is one of the reasons why I don't like the idea of most police officers having live firing guns.

How can you pull the trigger 'accidentally'?

 

[Garry Edwards]

How can you pull the trigger 'accidentally'?

It's when the gun is ready and the shooter is nearly ready - it only takes a tiny bit of unintended pressure on the trigger and away you go...

Rifle triggers should be squeezed gently, the shooter never knows the exact moment when it will fire (a bit like squeezing the shutter on a camera) but shotgun triggers tend to be pulled rather than squeezed. I'm a rifle shooter who later added shotguns to the list of expensive hobbies and maybe this is why I sometimes have a bit of a feel of the trigger, before I'm completely ready to fire, without knowing I'm doing it. It's pretty common.

 

[fracster]

How can you pull the trigger 'accidentally'?

Depends on the trigger setting and the person holding the rifle. I set mine fairly fine, but then again, I don`t go pointing it at things that I don`t want to shoot.

 

[Garry Edwards]

Depends on the trigger setting and the person holding the rifle. I set mine fairly fine, but then again, I don`t go pointing it at things that I don`t want to shoot.

Spot on. Safe practice is all about following a procedure that includes never having the gun or rifle ready to fire until it's pointed at the target.
Most rifle shooters set their triggers light, shotguns can vary tremendously, revolvers tend to have heavy triggers, semi-auto handguns tend to have lighter ones. I have no idea about the taser guns but I would hope that they have both heavy triggers and that the police are properly trained in safe procedures.

All I'm suggesting is that in this case, it could easily have been an accidental (negligent) discharge, with no intention of actually shooting the guy.

 

[raymond bradshaw]

I am against arming the police personally , you only have to look across the pond to relies it does,n,t solve any thing , and what about the poor old blind guy with a white stick taser d

 

[Garry Edwards]

I think that the vast majority of people, including over 80% of police officers, are against routine arming of the police.

The question though, is what can and should be done to improve the safety of both the public and the police whenever armed police are, or may be needed?

Things may be different in big cities, I don't know - but it seems to take for ever for unarmed police to arrive on scene whenever there is a possibility that there may be an armed criminal present - and I can perfectly understand why unarmed police officers are cautious - and it can take an unbelievable length of time for armed officers to arrive.

 

[cowasaki]

I think that the vast majority of people, including over 80% of police officers, are against routine arming of the police.

The question though, is what can and should be done to improve the safety of both the public and the police whenever armed police are, or may be needed?

Things may be different in big cities, I don't know - but it seems to take for ever for unarmed police to arrive on scene whenever there is a possibility that there may be an armed criminal present - and I can perfectly understand why unarmed police officers are cautious - and it can take an unbelievable length of time for armed officers to arrive.

Taser trained officers (who are generally not AFOs) are often sent to incidents that would have had AFOs sent previously. This is fine in the vast majority of incidents but, obviously, when it really is an incident requiring an AFO it might take longer. Rural areas will obviously take longer to get any officer, especially an armed officer, to due to geography!

 

[Garry Edwards]

With rural areas, problems can and do arise, not just because there are no police in the area and those based in the nearest town don't know the area, but also because the police control room is typically situated many miles from the incident, there is therefore no local knowledge. The police want a postcode, there isn't one and they don't seem to understand grid references. This can result in very long delays before there is any attendance at all.

If firearms officers are needed, then that's a further long delay, they may well have a hour or so of driving to get there, and that's after they've reported for duty and got kitted up, which can easily be another hour.

Whatever the reasons, the delays mean that there is no effective police support in an emergency. Not a criticism, just a statement of fact.

I

 

[Bernie174]

and it can take an unbelievable length of time for armed officers to arrive.

That would be for a number of reasons.
1. There never were a huge number in rural areas to start with
2. Those that are, are being sent to jobs that have nothing to do with police, but because there's no one else, they are the ones called.
3. Of the few that are left, due to a lot of very silly decisions by the "I"PCC, the Home Office and ACPOO, are being sent to things like "Fred called Jane a slag on facebook". Why? In case at some point in the future, Jane murders Fred, which if Police didn't attend, would be entirely the fault of the police.
4. Whining by the public has reduced training/practice in high speed driving. Means of course, if you haven't practiced to a high enough level of speed, you would be daft to put your life, other peoples lives, your livelihood and driving license at risk.
5. Cuts in Police funding, because the public want to pay less income/council tax, means that there are now less Police.

So, yes, police take a long time to turn up nowadays. In fact thats in Cities too. Last time I called them, in a city, there were none to send the box was empty.

And no, it certainly isn't due to your implication that they hold back. They may do if there's an ARV, although in many counties, especially at night the chances are it's miles away, if it's not already busy and not going to be there for a very long time.

 

[DemiLion]

Taser trained officers (who are generally not AFOs)

That's very much force dependant.

 

[cowasaki]

That's very much force dependant.

Not really. Most forces now have non AFOs as taser officers and as such more of the taser officers will be taser only as only a small number are full AFOs.

 

[Garry Edwards]

Whichever system/deployment method is used by various forces, if it takes more than a very small number of minutes for police officers to attend an incident in which members of the public need help, it can be far too long. And if it takes well over an hour, it's just a token service that has no actual value to the public.

 

[cowasaki]

Whichever system/deployment method is used by various forces, if it takes more than a very small number of minutes for police officers to attend an incident in which members of the public need help, it can be far too long. And if it takes well over an hour, it's just a token service that has no actual value to the public.

It's all about costs, would the public be willing to double their payments in order to double the number of officers? Probably not......

 

[Garry Edwards]

Double? Maybe not, but my personal view is that services such as fire, police and ambulance should always be financed adequately, regardless of the overall economic situation, and should be protected from cuts that affect other public services.

Not that it's all about money, there is often room for improvement in systems and infrastructure, and there is often too much spent on areas that really don't matter, and on people who are paid too much to do too little, but what's needed is adequate funding and adequate efficiency.

I'm willing to bet that the police forces could make good use of the money that is now going to be spent on the new police commissioners...

 

[Laudrup]

What would it cost to train and arm every police officer in the UK?

 

[Garry Edwards]

What would it cost to train and arm every police officer in the UK?

That wouldn't be an option, mainly because more than 80% of police officers don't want to be armed.
And even if they did, by no means all would be suitable material.
But even if all the police officers who are prepared to carry a gun and who are suitable, it would cost an unbelievable amount of money for ongoing training, because using a gun responsibly and, at the same time, effectively and efficiently, would involve an enormous amount of weekly practice

 

[Reidy36]

I agree with Garry, our emergency services should be ring fenced and guaranteed set money to allow them to operate effectively without budget worries.
It would be nice for funding for the correct level of training, don't think rounds cost that much each, it's the time down the range requalifying and then having someone to cover your duty that must be the biggest burden.
The all singing all dancing trainers are great for scenarios, but the only way you get proficient with your IW is range time.

 

[Bernie174]

Garry

Yes, there's a hue amount of waste in the police servicew, but that wont change, simply because it's now very much a target culture.
For example, Operational Police officers usually know exactly where the crime is happening, and who's doing it. Proving it mind you isn't that easy or straight forward. But now anyway, it has to be evidenced, so they now employ analysts to tell management what everyone else already knows.
Sernior Police officers driving round in big German cars, which are apparently also response vehicles, except they never get used as such, in case ACC Bloggs needs it to take him wife to the shops.
So, yes, there is a great deal of room for savings, except they aren't being made in those areas, because the Force Management teams need (not an expression I'd use) to prove points. Of course because they all nowadays lack any real experience of Policing, most have spent months not years being operational, prefering to get into a no grief office job asap after training, so they lack the knowdge thier own officers have, which makes them feel uneasy.
Instead it's easier to cut down on front line policing and be creative with crime figures.
There's not a huge amount of money, in the great scheme of things being spent on PCC's. Although tI am sure that will rise like an appollo rocket when they are in place, but yes, however much it is, it would be better being spent on policing rather than the PCC Con.

 

[odd jim]

That wouldn't be an option, mainly because more than 80% of police officers don't want to be armed.
And even if they did, by no means all would be suitable material.
But even if all the police officers who are prepared to carry a gun and who are suitable, it would cost an unbelievable amount of money for ongoing training, because using a gun responsibly and, at the same time, effectively and efficiently, would involve an enormous amount of weekly practice

You are aware that across the country, standard AFOs only do 3 weeks of training a year (bar initial courses and re-quals)??

It certainly wouldn't mean an enormous amount of weekly practice (which we dont get time to do now anyway). The only prohibitive aspect initially would be cost of hardware, and putting vast amounts of officers through the initial course.

The answer is simple - more tasers for the time being. In my force, as well as AFOs, public order teams, area car drivers and RPU now carry them. And they are VERY effective.

 

[Garry Edwards]

You are aware that across the country, standard AFOs only do 3 weeks of training a year (bar initial courses and re-quals)??

It certainly wouldn't mean an enormous amount of weekly practice (which we dont get time to do now anyway). The only prohibitive aspect initially would be cost of hardware, and putting vast amounts of officers through the initial course.

It's academic anyway, as the vast majority of police officers have made it very clear that they won't do it...

But I maintain that if it did happen, it would indeed involve an enormous amount of weekly practice, or it would if the need to train them to a reasonably high standard was accepted. Handling firearms instinctively, having the ability to use them without hesitation if necessary and not at all if not necessary, and having the ability to hit a potentially moving target at any distance within range, in any lighting or weather conditions, would involve an enormous amount of both ongoing training and practice. And training just at a normal range, shooting at large, stationary targets that don't shoot back, wouldn't begin to cover it.

It's a bit like passing the driving test on a nice sunny day in June. It doesn't qualify people to (safely) drive all types of vehicles at all types of speeds in all types of weather conditions, that involves further training and constant practice.

 

[odd jim]

It's academic anyway, as the vast majority of police officers have made it very clear that they won't do it...

But I maintain that if it did happen, it would indeed involve an enormous amount of weekly practice, or it would if the need to train them to a reasonably high standard was accepted. Handling firearms instinctively, having the ability to use them without hesitation if necessary and not at all if not necessary, and having the ability to hit a potentially moving target at any distance within range, in any lighting or weather conditions, would involve an enormous amount of both ongoing training and practice. And training just at a normal range, shooting at large, stationary targets that don't shoot back, wouldn't begin to cover it.

It's a bit like passing the driving test on a nice sunny day in June. It doesn't qualify people to (safely) drive all types of vehicles at all types of speeds in all types of weather conditions, that involves further training and constant practice.

It doesn't, but that's how the government would do it, at minimal cost. And as I say, AFOs don't do much in the way of "weekly practice", and I should know!

Your figures are completely wrong btw (not nit picking here)' in the last survey 70% said if needed, they would carry firearms on duty (Police Federation survey, viewable on their web site). From 30% who wouldn't want to by choice, it's not because most of this minority don't want to carry per se, it's the fact that in the UK, for a live shooting, the officer even if 100% justified in pulling the trigger would be treated like a criminal for months, if not years afterwards. Only 13% said they would point blank refuse to carry a firearm on duty.

The simple fact is using deadly force in the UK is frowned upon by management and government, they'd prefer the bobby to take a bullet.

 

[Eddzz!!]

Lighting this thread back up two years on... We're seeing the progressive armament of officers in the MET. With threats encroaching on British soil (ISIS, British Jihad etc.) seeming all the more likely, then I wouldn't be surprised to see the regular arming of officers up and down the country. Not sure how I feel about it to be honest - very much on the fence!