Based on the video I have no idea why you'd do that.

Because he was a suspected (mistakenly) criminal, and he was struggling with the police. You've no idea if he was carrying a weapon, and when your that close it only takes a second to use it.

Andy wrote:

Unlikely wrote:

High, if it's used at all.

In the year ending 31 March 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014, 8000 people were tasered by Police in England and Wales. There were no deaths. In the same period, conventional firearms were discharged 18 times, resulting in five deaths.

I don't live there but thanks for the info.

Andy wrote:

Unlikely wrote:

Based on the video I have no idea why you'd do that.

Taser him? The officer has the taser drawn, and ready. In response, the male walks towards the officer, points towards her face (an indicator for the officer that he's bringing her into his fighting arc) then he hides his hands behind his back, which could be him reaching for a weapon, while still moving towards her. If you're trained to fight, someone concealing their hands is a big warning/danger sign. That would have been a stonewall justified discharge right there.

And this is what's very scary. If the police are taught about "Fighting Arc" and use it as a reason to, and let's not forget this, fire an incapacitating and certainly dangerous pile of electricity into someone's face they're totally being trained wrongly.

And what if this aggressive and hostile individual had pulled a knife and stabbed the police officer in the neck?

Some criminals are more than prepared to attack police officers incredibly viciously if they can

Sigh. At Andy, who once again seems to think he has the authority and knowledge to speak for the entire UK police contingent. Go to bed.

Do we know what the suspect was suspected of?

GooberTheHat wrote:

OK, how do you think police should deal with potentially dangerous people that are resisting arrest and are acting aggressively toward them.

What, me?

Like this.

The use of a potentially lethal weapon by the police should always be a last resort.

Swearing at someone armed with something that could kill you is dumb.

There are a variety of responses to the situation. As an OST instructor, I taught folk that there was no one correct response to a situation. As an AFO, I was also trained in the use of taser. Not that it's a pissing contest but, given the six or seven years experience I have in those specialisms, and 14 years of restraining people, including the last two dealing with people actively resisting and assaulting myself and my colleagues, I'm satisfied I know more than you ever will about this. As I explained, that would have been a fully justified discharge, but not the only viable option.

Now, as Goober pointed out, that fraction of a second could have resulted in the officer being stabbed in the neck. I'd be more than happy for you to explain to me why a taser discharge at that point would not have been justified, given your apparently enviable knowledge of the subject.

I certainly do. Again, you forget where you sit in this hierarchy.

Andy wrote:

Unlikely wrote:

High, if it's used at all.

In the year ending 31 March 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014, 8000 people were tasered by Police in England and Wales. There were no deaths. In the same period, conventional firearms were discharged 18 times, resulting in five deaths.

I've got a stinking cold, so I've probably missed something obvious, but how does that square with this article that lists 17 deaths related to Taser use since 2003, including one in 2013 in which the inquest explicitly states that the Taser was the likely cause of death? 

Also, isn't there a risk that the "non-lethality" of the Taser means that a Police Officer might be more inclined to use it than they would, say, a gun?

Andy wrote:

Very good. Typical Unlikely; when you can't back up the crap you write, you resort to trolling. Well done.

And now what are you claiming?

tin_robot wrote:

Andy wrote:

Unlikely wrote:

High, if it's used at all.

In the year ending 31 March 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014, 8000 people were tasered by Police in England and Wales. There were no deaths. In the same period, conventional firearms were discharged 18 times, resulting in five deaths.

I've got a stinking cold, so I've probably missed something obvious, but how does that square with this article that lists 17 deaths related to Taser use since 2003, including one in 2013 in which the inquest explicitly states that the Taser was the likely cause of death? 

Also, isn't there a risk that the "non-lethality" of the Taser means that a Police Officer might be more inclined to use it than they would, say, a gun?

I also have a stinking cold. When you work out how to cure yours can you post me whatever you're taking, plox?

Bugger, this is not a reaction to Tin's post.

I think he means because they are non lethal, the officer will be more quick to use them then a gun and not be as considerate of the consequences. They may even treat them as a more casual defence.