Police 'Taser Fireball' Death Investigation

Note to self: Don't douse self in flammable liquid.

Tah-duh.

So... a man covers himself in petrol, for which there can be only one reason. Since we can assume with some saftey that this was not part of an all body skin care plan, its pretty safe to conclude that his intention was to set him self on fire, or gain the sort of attention which a threat to do so, would obviously attract.

Now, one of the crucially important things about petrol, is that the fumes , rather than the liquid, are the part of the fuel which actually burns. One of the others is, that flammable gases can often be ignited with just a teeny tiny spark, just the smallest burst of energy can result in ignition. So it is not outside the bounds of logic, for one to come to the conclusion that shooting a man, covered in a highly flammable fuel, with a weapon which is DESIGNED to output large amounts of electrical energy, would be a bad idea, and result in an unsatisfactory outcome.

One does not walk into ones home after a day at work, register the smell of gas from the oven that one has carelessly left on, and then proceed to roll, and light a cigarette. Such a foolish action has one result, that of being summarily blown to bloody chunks by the methane explosion one has just caused by ones idiot actions. Similarly, one should, if one has been qualified to carry a tazer weapon, be fully aware of the health and saftey issues that are presented by thier use. For instance, if one should avoid lighting a cigarette on a petrol forecourt, then one should probably reconsider deploying a tazer at a petrol soaked target, unless ones intentions run to char grilling a person, in which case, fire away by all means.

I fail to believe for one moment that the officer did not know that deploying the tazer could have cooked off the petroleum marinade in which the dead man was soaked. I can only suggest that at the moment of deployment, he or she had what is commonly refered to as a brain fart, and triggered the device before thier reasoning mind took over. That is assuming there were not other motives or reasons for the deployment. If the target began to approach the officers who responded to the call, then perhaps they deployed thier tazer in order to prevent him coming any closer to them, thus presenting them with a direct threat to thier own bodily saftey. If THAT was the case, then the issue becomes slightly thornier if only because it would involve the wieghing of one life against another, a task I have always felt is best left to deities and philosophers, rather than ill educated buffoons such as myself.

It's still a crime even if you take away the fact it was a person that was set fire to and that it was a cop that did it. It fall under cause a fire hazard.

I was a cop for 25 years. I retired before the TASER was standard issue in Law Enforcement. Most of the current cops I know hate the dam thing, but are required to carry it.

Both parties are at fault. Dude shouldn't have covered himself in petrol, AND the cop shouldn't have tazed him. Fair enough?

reply to post by Florida Fox


Interesting post.

If they hate it so much might there come a time when some start a serious public/behind the scenes debate about its safety record and its role in general?


reply to post by jjsr420

Originally posted by jjsr420
Both parties are at fault. Dude shouldn't have covered himself in petrol, AND the cop shouldn't have tazed him. Fair enough?

I'd have to beg to differ if that implies equal culpability. Dousing himself was foolish but did him no actual harm. Foolishly firing a taser set him alight — and killed the poor guy.

Originally posted by benrl
Lesson from this, don't cover yourself in gas and antagonize the cops in anyway.

To be fair the last six words are a little superfluous!

2nd