TASER Use

Apparently yesterday police in Britain TASERed a blind man believing his white stick was a samurai sword. This proves that all British police are moronic, trigger-happy thugs who shoot first and ask questions later (if at all). Naturally. British bobbies are incapable of doing anything apart from inflicting violence don't you know? They certainly can't defuse a tense situation using nothing more than words, nor can they resist near endless provocation from members of the public intent on having a scrap before arresting them with minimal force and the certainly can't offer sympathy, comfort and solace to the recently believed often in tragic circumstances (and despite the fact that an alarming number look so young that they need a note from their mum to be out at night). Certainly, in the case of the latter, I have never attended Coroner's inquests where the relatives of the deceased (the unexpected death of a baby and a rather messy suicide) took time during their evidence and despite their obvious distress to thank the police officers who attended the scene for their kindness and compassion while at the scene. That sort of stuff never happens because British police are far too busy driving around recklessly and gratuitously kicking the shit out of people.

Now undoubtedly there will be some who say that mistaking a blind person's white stick for a samurai sword is as ludicrous as mistaking a guide dog for a pit bull but let's take a step back over the next few minutes and have a look. I don't know all the facts of this case nor am I a police officer so there will be a large amount of conjecture but bear with me until the end and see if what I'm saying makes sense. First off let's bear in mind that despite the uniform, police officers are human beings. Bullets don't bounce off them, knives don't bend when they come into contact with a police uniform. The recent tragic events in Manchester show this all to clearly. This means that they have lives, family and friends that they wish to see again. Just because they have signed up to do a job that involves an element of danger doesn't mean that they forfeit the right to go home at the end of the day uninjured. Therefore we cannot expect police officers to simply saunter up to someone who they suspect is armed without a thought for their own safety.

Ok, so we've established the police have a right to have regard for their own safety. What about this situation? I will say again that I don't know all the facts of the case but I doubt the TASER will have been used lightly. Some will argue that the individual in question was an old man using a white stick to get around. Fair enough but and old person isn't necessarily a nice person and pretty much any item under the sun can be weaponised or have a weapon concealed in it. If anybody is going to know this then surely it will be a police officer - they have to deal with the more unpleasant aspects of society on a daily basis. As I have said before, they have the right to go home in one piece so it would not be unreasonable of them to go for a worst-case scenario in their risk-assessment. Certainly I would if I were in their position, then things can only get better.

So assuming they opted for a worst-case scenario what were the options? Again I'm not a police officer so this is essentially conjecture but as I see it the options are as follows: get up close and personal to restrain, detain and disarm the individual using either their bare hands or batons (bearing in mind, at this point they are still assuming he is carrying something nasty); use a device to temporarily incapacitate him from a distance keeping the officers safe, the surrounding public safe and ultimately the suspect safe (yes being TASERed isn't going to be comfortable but it will be short-lived and ultimately the vast majority walk away either unscathed or with minor bumps and bruises); finally, the officers could have called in armed colleagues (even if TASER is carried routinely British police are still essentially unarmed) who, if they perceived a genuine threat could have legitimately shot the individual in question.

Let's look at the first option. Common sense dictates that if you're going into a close-quarters confrontation with someone that you are assuming is armed you go in mob-handed and using serious amounts of force so your potential assailant is quickly overwhelmed, overpowered and rendered incapable of using whatever weapon they may have. However this undoubtedly puts the safety of the officers at risk because they will be up close to someone that is potentially armed and doesn't particularly want to be arrested. It is also extremely violent and could well result in serious injury to the suspect.

Now let's go to the third option; calling in armed officers. If the suspect for whatever reason doesn't follow the commands given, they are at serious risk of being shot if the officers in question believe there is a serious and genuine risk to public safety (and here there is precedent for officers opening fire on a suspect whom they genuinely believed to be armed at the time but who later turned out to be unarmed). Despite what Holywood shows, gunshots are serious injuries; they cause extensive injuries. Now police officers in the UK, as far as I'm aware, are not trained to 'shoot to kill' but 'shooting to wound' is a fallacy. Bullet wounds are serious enough that there is a realistic prospect of death for the recipient. What's more the police are trained to shoot at the central mass of a person, the torso essentially, to maximise the chance of a) hitting the target so nobody else gets injured by stray bullets and b) maximise the chance of disabling the target. If things are serious enough for police to open fire then the last thing they want is the person they have shot either getting back up or still being able to use their weapon from the ground. This is a serious situation but not necessarily an over reaction if you are of the belief that you are about to confront someone who is armed and prepared to use a weapon.

This leaves option number two where non-lethal force is used from a safe distance to temporarily incapacitate the suspect allowing them to be restrained, police to gain control of the situation and the full facts verified before further decisions taken. Suddenly it doesn't seem so bad does it? The suspect is neither faced with overwhelming physical force from the police (a hail of fists and batons) nor do they find themselves with a gunshot wound. Police officers, like everyone else in Britain, have the right to use reasonable force to defend themselves and other people. They have also taken an oath to defend the population of this country and as a result they will find themselves in situations where they face danger and force is required (I would argue that the definition of "reasonable" in law should be altered slightly to reflect this but that's a longer and more academic point). Also, it's worth bearing in mind that the officers in question would not have simply strolled up an zapped this man. They would have tried to engage him verbally first then given a number of oral warnings before finally deploying the TASER. In short, they would have given ample opportunity so surrender and sort out any misunderstanding before resorting to force.

This particular story has struck a particular chord with me personally at the moment because I am actively considering joining the police. One of the biggest factors, in my mind, against it beyond the pay, pension and working conditions (although I don't really know any different so that's not as much of an issue) is the fact that police officers are expected to go into dangerous situations unarmed and are seemingly expected to resolve them by doing nothing more than asking nicely (this isn't Midsommer Murders). Personally, I believe police should be armed. It's that simple. Right now, there is no real reason not to attack police if they are telling you something you don't want to hear. You might get a few bruises where they restrain you more roughly but balance that against the fact you might just escape and even if you do get arrested for assaulting a police officer, it's enormously unlikely it will be taken further and if it is, it's even more unlikely you will get a meaningful sentence. If the police were armed and people knew they were at risk of serious injury if they tried to fight their way out I genuinely believe they would think twice about trying it on. Even if police aren't routinely armed, I would still be prepared to do the job knowing there was a risk involved. However although I am aware there is a risk to my personal safety, I would not be prepared to recklessly endanger myself nor do I expect others to do so. Given that precondition, a TASER starts sounding better and better. Apart from the fact it can be used remotely, it's effects are generally short-lived. Without it things could certainly escalate. Speaking strictly for myself I have never really been in a fight (beyond schoolboy handbags) so even with self-defence training there's no guarantee I would be coming out of it in control. Leaving that aside for a moment, hitting someone inevitably means using one's own body to apply force. Basic biophysics dictates therefore that you yourself are open to injury just (punching is especially bad for causing wrist injuries - hence why boxers strap up their hands). Therefore, in this hypothetical conflict where I'm hypothetically a police officer, my first choice would probably be to draw and use my baton. So we have an individual being hit with an object here and one designed to transfer force. Furthermore, let's not mince words, they're going to be hit hard since I want them incapacitated quickly or worried enough about their own safety that they forget to threaten mine. Hitting them hard will probably cause injury ranging from extensive bruising to broken bones. Again, suddenly pain and the cuts/bruises associated with a fall seems a lot less severe now - arguably less violent and forceful than the alternatives.

Apologies for rambling. My point is essentially, while not knowing the full facts of the case, there are two sides to the story and the officers involved in the case have the right to have their innocence presumed until strong evidence shows otherwise. We cannot and should not expect the police officers protecting us to expose themselves needlessly to excessive risks. As such, we should bear in mind that when approaching a situation they are almost certainly thinking, "What's the worst that could happen?" and acting accordingly to protect their safety and the safety of the public in general. This should be commended rather than criticised.

JR