It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Timely
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.?
If the training says 'use the taser' then people will revert to their training under stress...
...They probably weren't trained to deal with people doused in petrol.In stress you do what you are trained to do.
Gotta go with the General on this one. In the fictional world of code-enforcement and code-enforcement officers, they are NOT paid to protect and serve the public. That "Protect and Serve" on the side of the cars they drive around refers to the commercial court system. It's been a long time since it referred to 'the people'.
Originally posted by Magister
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".
Originally posted by pause4thought
reply to post by justwokeup
If the training says 'use the taser' then people will revert to their training under stress...
...They probably weren't trained to deal with people doused in petrol.In stress you do what you are trained to do.
These are fair points. But, tellingly, if you take a look at the related thread referred to in the OP, "Man set alight after being hit with taser", it dates back to July 2009.
At the very least the senior officers responsible for training should be up for criminal negligence. Perhaps even Corporate Manslaughter...
Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty
The word Taser should be taken from our language.
Call them what they are, cattle prods.
Originally posted by pause4thought
reply to post by HelenConway
Sorry if I wasn't clear. I was referring to "Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:" linked to in the OP.
That (—similar—) incident occurred nearly 4 years ago!
Originally posted by Timely
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.?
I'm leaning towards not mentally stable and possibly suicidal.
Now what are you supposed to do with someone who is dangerous to themselves and to the public? You've got to stop them anyway you can while minimizing risks. If someone is covered in petrol and is presenting himself or herself as a threat, what would you do ? run away?
Originally posted by Timely
reply to post by justwokeup
It doesn't sound as if they had the luxury of calling specialists. ie; beanbags.?