Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Police 'Taser Fireball' Death Investigation

page: 1
10
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 27 2013 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Police 'Taser Fireball' Death Investigation


news.sky.com

A man who had covered himself in petrol became a human fireball after police shot him with a Taser...

...A police watchdog will investigate whether firing the weapon at Andrew Pimlott, 32, caused fatal burns...

...He was taken to hospital... where he died five days later...

"...Our investigation will be looking at what information was known to the officers attending the scene, [and] the officer's rationale for discharging a Taser on a person known to be doused in flammable liquid..."
(visit the link for the full news article)



Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Man set alight after being hit with Taser
Police beat, taser mentally ill homeless man to death
Grand Rapids man dies after repeated tasering (UPDATE: another tasering ends in death).
Cops Kill 1 Person a week with Tasers! Video(s)
edit on 27/4/13 by pause4thought because: corrected link




posted on Apr, 27 2013 @ 07:26 PM
link   
Yet another death following use of this 'non-lethal weapon' by the police. Anyone else sick of hearing such stories?

From the elderly to the disabled, from innocent protestors to the politically incorrect — it seems no-one is safe from this scourge of present-day law enforcement.

One innocent victim would be too many. It's high time this whole approach was completely consigned to history other than as an absolute last resort.







news.sky.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Apr, 27 2013 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by pause4thought
Yet another death following use of this 'non-lethal weapon' by the police.


The guy covered himself in gasoline and died from the resulting burns, not from being shocked to death.
This is not a fair way to criticize the use of these weapons.



posted on Apr, 27 2013 @ 07:49 PM
link   
Lesson from this, don't cover yourself in gas and antagonize the cops in anyway.



posted on Apr, 27 2013 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by trollz & benrl
 


Folks, the cops KNEW he was covered in flammable liquid.

Criminal negligence at its worst.



posted on Apr, 27 2013 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by pause4thought
reply to post by trollz & benrl
 


Folks, the cops KNEW he was covered in flammable liquid.

Criminal negligence at its worst.



Yea and the dude knew that covering himself in gas cold cause self immolation...

Go get a toy gun and point it at a cop, watch what happens.
edit on 27-4-2013 by benrl because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2013 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by benrl
 


And if the cops KNOWS its a toy gun, but decides to shoot anyway, the cop is STILL guilty of negligence, or more realistically, murder.



posted on Apr, 27 2013 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by benrl
 


True. But your premise that this abrogates the police of responsibility for this man's death is bunkum.

You call the police to defuse a situation. Not to set a match to light a member of the public — whom they are paid to protect.



posted on Apr, 27 2013 @ 09:31 PM
link   
What if it was intentional death by cop situation? What is the police officer supposed to do, you can't expect the LE to put his life on the line also.

But this is only if it was an intentional death by cop scenario.



posted on Apr, 27 2013 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by pause4thought
reply to post by benrl
 


True. But your premise that this abrogates the police of responsibility for this man's death is bunkum.

You call the police to defuse a situation. Not to set a match to light a member of the public — whom they are paid to protect.



Ah...but they are not paid to protect the public! They are paid to protect the system. If the public benefits, it is purely by chance. Laws are in place to promote order. This order makes it easier to conduct business and protect "assets".



posted on Apr, 27 2013 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by trollz

Originally posted by pause4thought
Yet another death following use of this 'non-lethal weapon' by the police.


The guy covered himself in gasoline and died from the resulting burns, not from being shocked to death.
This is not a fair way to criticize the use of these weapons.


I don't really think he doused himself. Instead think its one of TPTB Baal sacrifices for April, by fire. Like all the other fire ones this month.



posted on Apr, 27 2013 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by pause4thought
Folks, the cops KNEW he was covered in flammable liquid.


Apparently, they didn't know 50,000 volts can cause a spark...



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 03:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaticusMaximus
reply to post by benrl
 


And if the cops KNOWS its a toy gun, but decides to shoot anyway, the cop is STILL guilty of negligence, or more realistically, murder.


Unfortunately if the red thing is taken off the end of the "toy gun" they open themselves to
death by cop.
Cops are people - with families that like to catch up - they are doing a job they also deserve
to go home from at night/day after a shift same as a subway employee.

Don't wave guns in their faces - simple.

ETA: I would hate to be the Cop, just trying to make a difference through my job as a LEO ...

to have to shoot someone who decides "death by cop" is the best way out of some nasty crap that they brought upon themselves.

Think about it - it is a tough gig !
edit on 28-4-2013 by Timely because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 04:28 AM
link   
So to put this in perspective. A man doused himself in petrol and gambled that the police are filled with smart people. He lost.

While failing to reason that a taser is an incendiary device is clearly incompetence, its not necessarily negligence. If the training says 'use the taser' then people will revert to their training under stress.

In most cases (other than unhinged petrol soaked folk) its probably safer being subdued by a taser rather than being subdued by bludgeoning with a baton (the historical approach).



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 05:41 AM
link   
reply to post by justwokeup
 

Have got to disagree on your take on this.

Would you suggest a close quarters approach ? With flammable liquids - obvious - but quantity or
placement - yet unascertained ? No batons there.

A carefully directed ( not in the manual ) pistol shot to dis-able and not cause combustion ?

What would be your non-lethal yet - Extremely immediate - response be, considering your options
and responsibilities ?



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 06:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by trollz

Originally posted by pause4thought
Yet another death following use of this 'non-lethal weapon' by the police.


The guy covered himself in gasoline and died from the resulting burns, not from being shocked to death.
This is not a fair way to criticize the use of these weapons.


Are you blooming serious !!!
He died because the police fired a taser at him - with an electrical charge - knowing full well that he had poured petrol over him self.
They should not have fired the taser !!!!!!!!!!!!



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 06:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Knives4eyes
What if it was intentional death by cop situation? What is the police officer supposed to do, you can't expect the LE to put his life on the line also.

But this is only if it was an intentional death by cop scenario.


The police who fired that taser were officers from the Devon and Cornwall police.
Their lives were in no way endangered.
They fired an electrical volt into a man who was covered in a flammable liquid.
They knew that he would ignite - well in retrospect anyway.
DO NOT make excuses for them.

Personally - I think they were a bit thick and did not realise that the taser would act as a spark to cause the fire.
Thick thick thick .....



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Timely
reply to post by justwokeup
 

Have got to disagree on your take on this.

Would you suggest a close quarters approach ? With flammable liquids - obvious - but quantity or
placement - yet unascertained ? No batons there.

A carefully directed ( not in the manual ) pistol shot to dis-able and not cause combustion ?

What would be your non-lethal yet - Extremely immediate - response be, considering your options
and responsibilities ?



I'm not sure where you are coming from, so forgive me if I answer the wrong question.

If he's flammable (or holding just fuel) and he's not holding an ignition source subdue him with the baton/pepper spray. Or try and talk him down.

Shooting him with an ignition source isn't a good idea in any circumstances.

Shooting to wound is a nonsense from comic books and I wouldn't ever expect a law officer to try that. I doesn't say they are armed police anyway so its unclear if that was an option.

If fuel is involved a weapon based on electricity is the worst option.



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by justwokeup
 


I am saying you can not be sure that he does not hold an ignition source.
Therefore, approaching him is not an option. Which non lethal form of neutralising the suspect would you choose ? Bearing in mind, it would be a choice you must make on the spot, with limited kit.

It doesn't sound as if they had the luxury of calling specialists. ie; beanbags.?



posted on Apr, 28 2013 @ 10:16 AM
link   
The taser has become perhaps just a bit too convenient a police tool given its "non-lethal" status. I have seen surveillance videos where police have used these on fleeing minors, the elderly - a woman in her 70's during a traffic stop who just wouldn't "shut up," and in other situations where it appeared rather inappropriate but just too convenient. The fleeing teenaged girl who was tased in the back by a rather rotund cop is now allegedly permanently "vegetable-ized" after falling head-first into the pavement while immobilized and body unable to react normally to protect herself during such a fall.

The taser should not become the fall-back tool of choice for any occasion when a policeman's encounter is a bit less than fully compliant. There are obviously times when its use is not an appropriate response. "Don't taze me, bro!¨ Remember that? Just too much fun.

edit on 28-4-2013 by Erongaricuaro because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
10
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join