LETTER I was deeply disturbed by the report on December 27 that a man arrested outside a public house in Shrewsbury had been subjected to 50,000 volt shock from a taser gun.
The man was “allegedly aggressive” towards the officers arresting him.
My understanding was that these neurological weapons, which cause a severe convulsive fit and have killed 334 people since their introduction in the US, were only to be used as a non-lethal (or perhaps less-lethal) alternative to firearms.
In other words they would be used in cases where shooting and killing by trained firearms officers would be the only other way of protecting the public or the police.
It is clear from the reported details of this case, and the police statements about it, that the victim was not carrying a weapon, was not threatening to harm the public and was not capable of harming the police.
The man was possibly drunk and disorderly and could have been arrested by the officers present using the normal, proportional methods of physical restraint.
Is it now the case that untrained police officers can use these weapons more or less at will, whenever they feel threatened by an angry word or gesture by a member of the public?
George Miller
Oswestry
10 Comments
Having been a police officer, the above mentioned comment of officers using these weapons not being trained is absolute rubbish. The police force train you extensively in all aspects of the job and firearms officers are incredibly highly and frequently trained. I suggest Mr Miller does a bit more research before making such powerful comments.
Report abuse
The police force have just taken delivery of 10,000 of them. Is Jaquie Smith expecting something? Mass civil unrest maybe if the economy falls off a cliff.
Report abuse
I am all for it. Having seen the antics of drunken and violent yobs on the streets of our towns I applaud the Officers concerned. If these weapons were used a bit more it would certainly make others think twice before indulging in unruly and rowdy behaviour knowing that they could be the next ones to have a ’shock coming to them’.
Report abuse
sometimes people just don’t listen. maybe he will think twice about it next time.
Report abuse
I assume your employer is amnesty international. They are the group that reports the lies you quote concerning the number of deaths. Tasers do not kill, unless you fall and hit your head. The comprehensive research is available. In the US, there is a DRUG problem. Overdosed on crack, meth, etc, just before they die of their DRUG OVERDOSE many tend to go crazy, and who you gonna call? The headline is “Taser death”. The follow-up is “deadly cocaine level in blood”. Taser Saves Lives Everyday
Report abuse
Or lets put it another way …
had this individual not been drunk and disorderly, not been causing such a problem and nuisance to the vast majority of the law abiding public who would have been doing no more than enjoying responsible sociably acceptable activities, would it have been necessary for the police to have been called to restore order ????
You don’t say how many police officers were present – having seen the low numbers that are there to look after our streets, probably only one or two, are you aware how aggressive and difficult to control one highly drunk and volatile person can be ????
Personally if my partner was in the police I would rather some stupid pathetic drunken loof was controlled by this method than even one police officer suffered any injury as a result
And as to the risk of injury, a lot more drunken fools get seriously injured as a result of the drink itself – is that the police’s fault too for not protecting them from themselves ????
Report abuse
I totally agree. The police use many methods of restraint, including CS Spray that they seem fit to use at their will, they look for the slightest bit of agressive or intimidating behaviour as an excuse to use them. Im sure 2 or 3 officers could subdue and restrain someone with brute force, handcuffs and straps, rather than this eccesive force
Report abuse
You are absolutely correct. To use a taser gun on what is a routine arrest is disturbing. The police are being armed to deal with the inevitable economic crash and the anger of the British people. Many people still think that terror laws were to prevent terrorists from acting in Britain. Wrong again. They will be a tool against the people. 28 days was the first step to complete detention without trial. As terrorism will never be defined, anyone who stands up to the elite will be classed as a threat to national security and detained. It is no suprise that the idea of scrapping juries has been mentioned in recent times, no doubt replaced by Government appointed judges. As always, the “we are only fighting crime” argument is falsely used and the public then support a police state which will be used against them. History is repeating itself and it is time to do something about it.
Report abuse
It’s a disgrace we don’t have a real police force.
We have a service pandering to the whims of our liberal elite.
All respect has gone!
Our inept politicians have so much to answer for.
Report abuse
How do the police know that person didn’t have a weapon? Also fact that a person doesn’t have a weapon doesn’t mean he isn’t a threat to the police or general public. I can assure you someone who is drunk or is high on drugs can be a very real threat. You only have to look at the number of murders caused by people under the influence of drink or drugs.
The police need to have the means to protect themselves.
With reference to the deaths in the United States by Taser. I live in the U.S. and have seen some footage of police using tasers. The police have had to stun the victim multiple times as the offender has a gun or other weapon and won’t release it. The taser is a last resort before the officer draws his gun. (which the majority of British police don’t have)
Report abuse