Blind man tased by British police: cane a samurai sword

[B5B7]

An elderly blind man was tasered by a police officer in Britain who "mistook" his white cane for a samurai sword.
Brit newspaper report.

[TheFeniX]

I'm finding it hard to get worked up about this one. Yes, the officer acted with almost-lethal amounts of stupidity, but the department isn't stone-walling investigation or hiding behind "procedure" to avoid legal issues.

Chief Superintendent Stuart Williams, the officer’s commander, has apologised to Mr Farmer and said he ‘deeply regretted what has happened’.

I worry less about police fuck-ups, because cops are people, and more about said fuck-ups getting swept under the rug leaving victims with no recourse. That doesn't seem to be the case here.

[Dartzap]

Also remember that katana wielding lunatics are a somewhat regular sight for coppers in various parts of the country (well, three or four per year just down here!), so he may have just been following SOP for that sort of thing.

Regrettable yes, malicious.... unlikly

[Crazedwraith]

I'm finding it hard to get worked up about this one. Yes, the officer acted with almost-lethal amounts of stupidity, but the department isn't stone-walling investigation or hiding behind "procedure" to avoid legal issues

I don't know, They seem to be hiding behind the standard 'we're sorry. Lessons will be learned' spiel they do every time something like this happens. Why haven't you learnt them already from that last time this happened?

Also remember that katana wielding lunatics are a somewhat regular sight for coppers in various parts of the country (well, three or four per year just down here!), so he may have just been following SOP for that sort of thing.

The article suggest that it was not procedure to carrying tazers for anything less than a mad gunnman.

And while I can sort of see getting a cane confused with a katana in a sheath. I can't really see how they missed this guy being a bit of a doddering frail old man and attacked him from behind and zapped him.

I mean there's never been a big to do about some chap being thrown to the ground and later dying of a heart attack, right?

[TheFeniX]

I don't know, They seem to be hiding behind the standard 'we're sorry. Lessons will be learned' spiel they do every time something like this happens. Why haven't you learnt them already from that last time this happened?

From the article, it seems this use of a taser was unjustified no matter what:

He said: “Taser guns are only deployed in a situation where officers feel they would be faced with a gun.

I have no idea where I could actually read their procedures and, personally, I don't see the issue with using a taser against someone armed with a sword or knife, but this is likely more an issue with training or laziness/over-zealousness on part of the officer, rather than anything related to bad policy.

Now, if officers are being "nudged" to forgo policy by their superiors in these types of situations for whatever reason, that's another story. But I don't see any evidence of that.

[Kamakazie Sith]

From the article, it seems this use of a taser was unjustified no matter what:

He said: “Taser guns are only deployed in a situation where officers feel they would be faced with a gun.

I have no idea where I could actually read their procedures and, personally, I don't see the issue with using a taser against someone armed with a sword or knife, but this is likely more an issue with training or laziness/over-zealousness on part of the officer, rather than anything related to bad policy.

I think he misspoke. I have a hard time believing that a taser would only be reserved for situations involving firearms. I'd imagine any situation involving a threat of death would justify the use of a taser. That would mean any weapon capable of inflicting serious injury or death would qualify. Besides, just reserving tasers for use against firearm wielding suspects is beyond stupid. Tasers are a tool but they fail quite often.

[Agent Fisher]

Hmmm, do we have any idea on how close the blind man tasered looked to the subject with the sword? I mean, if they were dressed the same, both in the same area, with the same general height and ethnicity, I can easily picture an over-zealous officer thinking he's got the guy and deciding to tase right away rather than give the swordsman time to spin around and attack. So I understand using a less-lethal option to quickly subdue someone who the officer believed was armed with a lethal weapon. It sucks that the old man got tased, but in the USA, a case of mistaken identity like this probably would have ended in a gunshot.

Though I don't get the stance of tasers being only for subjects armed with guns, every department in the greater sacramento area that I know of, including a number of private security firms, use the taser as a defensive tool on the same part of the force spectrum as pepper spray, so I'd draw my taser for any sort of physical threat. And yeah, KS is right, a taser is a great tool, but they can fail, either from the probes not spreading enough, a miss, a clothing disconnect which happens when someone is wearing baggy clothes, or the wires breaking.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Hmmm, do we have any idea on how close the blind man tasered looked to the subject with the sword? I mean, if they were dressed the same, both in the same area, with the same general height and ethnicity, I can easily picture an over-zealous officer thinking he's got the guy and deciding to tase right away rather than give the swordsman time to spin around and attack. So I understand using a less-lethal option to quickly subdue someone who the officer believed was armed with a lethal weapon. It sucks that the old man got tased, but in the USA, a case of mistaken identity like this probably would have ended in a gunshot.

Well, given that the department is apologizing for what happened I think the officer tasered this old man in the back for simply not following instructions. There's no mention of him wielding the cane around in an aggressive manner or doing anything other than walking away. In my experience when the department goes right to apologizing then there is no justifiable reason given.

I also disagree that this would have ended in a shooting in the US. We deal with hundreds of weapon wielding subjects on a yearly basis. We average roughly two shootings a year. Given the information in this article I would not have fired at him.

[TheFeniX]

I also disagree that this would have ended in a shooting in the US. We deal with hundreds of weapon wielding subjects on a yearly basis. We average roughly two shootings a year. Given the information in this article I would not have fired at him.

Yea, something tells me, even with some of the dumbass procedures US police departments have, shooting someone in the back for failing to heed a "stop" warning isn't one of them.

[Agent Fisher]

I apologize, I misspoke and retract my statement.

[Saxtonite]

I also disagree that this would have ended in a shooting in the US. We deal with hundreds of weapon wielding subjects on a yearly basis. We average roughly two shootings a year. Given the information in this article I would not have fired at him.

Yea, something tells me, even with some of the dumbass procedures US police departments have, shooting someone in the back for failing to heed a "stop" warning isn't one of them.

Didn't that use to be allowed? At least during the 1920s-40s? Shooting at fleeing suspects

[Simon_Jester]

If so, I suspect it depended on circumstances.

Shooting a fleeing murder suspect is one thing; shooting a fleeing shoplifter is another.

[General Brock]

Maybe they saw Zatoichi? Sure, it sounds stupid, but a lot of the overreaction to martial arts weapons threats might come from their portrayal in movies.

Not to make light of it, but if the cops weren't thinking, just reacting, they might jump if they saw what they thought was a sword-cane and someone who appears to be blind.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I also disagree that this would have ended in a shooting in the US. We deal with hundreds of weapon wielding subjects on a yearly basis. We average roughly two shootings a year. Given the information in this article I would not have fired at him.

Yea, something tells me, even with some of the dumbass procedures US police departments have, shooting someone in the back for failing to heed a "stop" warning isn't one of them.

Didn't that use to be allowed? At least during the 1920s-40s? Shooting at fleeing suspects

Well, it still is to a degree.

If a police officer were chasing say Jeffrey Dahmer and it was likely that Dahmer would be able to escape arrest then the police officer could shoot him, in the back and even if he were unarmed.

Basically, the police officer would need probable cause that the person fleeing poses a deadly threat to people. Dahmer would qualify...easily.

However an elderly man, even with a sword, walking away from them would not.