What has got two legs and goes WOOF?
Chat Forum
[closed]
PSA: Do not sniff petrol if you intend to get tasered.
-
Posted 2 years ago #
-
Mr Mitchell was charged with...possession of a sniffing substance.
I persist in not liking thease things. The "if we hadn't electro-blasted him causing him to burst into flames we'd have had to pop a cap in his ass. Which do you prefer?" school of policing at its very finest.
Posted 2 years ago # -
ok, so what is the other option? Are you seriously suggesting that if someone is running at you, and you believe they are about to pur petrol on you, and set you on fire, that you'd let them?
Posted 2 years ago # -
Before policemen went around tooled up like this, I suppose they used to run a slightly greater risk of being hurt as a consequence of not treating interactions with the general public like a really good level of Grand Theft Auto.
Of course, the binary choice is always going to be in favour of not actually firing a 9mm bullet through someone's face, but presumably the process by which you get to the point at which that choice has to be made is the bit of these decisions that always needs to be carefully examined.
Posted 2 years ago # -
no, the guy would most likely be in a morgue not a hospital... WHat he had there was a deadly weapon. If he had run at them with a sword, would you feel any differently?
Posted 2 years ago # -
Tasertasertaser...
Seems like lowest common denominator policing to me.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I know no more about this than the article. As I say, given the choice between tasering someone and shooting them tasering must be preferable. What troubles me in general is the possibility that these situations can be safely turned into ones in which using a lot of force is thought to be appropriate because it is (fairly reliably) non-lethal.
Posted 2 years ago # -
"Do not sniff petrol if you intend to get tasered"
Is this what they teach kids in these new-fangled 'Citizenship' lessons?
How very modern.
Posted 2 years ago # -
funny how the fact that the policeman put the fire out with his bare hands is missed by the comments above
another interpretation is
police approach known violent offender off his head on petrol, the guy rushes them holding the petrol and lighter, they zap him with the tazer, go "oh sh*t" when he goes up in flames and promptly put the flames out with their bare hands and call for medical assistance for all.
but please carry on making comments about "lowest common denominator policing" if it makes you feel better
Posted 2 years ago # -
Cool, I will...
Posted 2 years ago # -
How is that another interpretation? My scorn would be of another order of magnitude if they'd set fire to him and then stood around laughing, I can assure you.
The bit we are most interested in is whether the "rushing" was inevitable. I've a creeping suspicion that police officers who can reliably put someone on the ground in appalling pain without doing them lasting harm are more willing to initiate or stoke violent confrontations. But I don't know, and anecdotal evidence from a single incident is not going to confirm it either way.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Where's alpin. Tazering is his thing isn't it?
Before policemen went around tooled up like this
Why do you reckon police have to be more 'tooled up' than before?Posted 2 years ago # -
Easy. Don't run at the police waving a can of petrol and a lighter and your chances of being tazered are significantly reduced.
Posted 2 years ago # -
LOL at Coyote and I second that point.
Having been an argumentative basteward all my life, and no lover of authority, I have to say that I have only once even come close to a situation where a copper was going to open a can of whoop-arse on me. However, having said that even when pished I tend not to pick fights with anyone, rather chosing to make myself scarce when trouble kicks off for the following reason.
The exception was at a football match in the 70's when a major amount of trouble had kicked off and I got nicked a) for arguing, and b) as far as I can work out at the time, bleeding in a public place. In retrospect, I should not have gone in the well known "trouble" end, and when I did it would have been wise to be more than 10 paces from the away fans, when it did kick off I should have backed off rather than stand my ground, and having been properly sorted for my troubles, it would have been wise to do as I was told by an obviously exasperated and probably quite scared copper rather than argue with him. ...... see how that pans out? At least 4 schoolboy errors back to back on my part equalled one arrest and a subsequent release without charge. I reckon continuing to gob off from that point would probably have moved me into the genreal taser zone had it existed then. And whose fault would it have been? 20 seconds on video would obviously make it the copper, but in the broader context definitely my own without any question in my mind.
Bottom line, why should the Police put up with being attacked without being able to defend themselves?
Posted 2 years ago # -
G - and you hadn't even been sniffing petrol!
why should the Police put up with being attacked without being able to defend themselves?
Obviously the police should be allowed to defend themselves but surely they always did, with a big stick. Couldn't they have done this the tried and tested way? I struggle to believe that a man who has been sniffing petrol was really capable of setting a police officer on fire before he could be clubbed to the ground and handcuffed by, presumably, a number of officers.
Posted 2 years ago # -
BD I've no doubt there are a few tooled up PC who will instead of talking a person down from whatver plane of slightly irrational thought they are on, will instead bring the situation to a head and deploy Sparky. Sure enough that is something to worry about, however seeing a wasted individual with petrol can in one hand, lighter in the other probably isn't the time to offer a comforting hug and at the same time who is going to goad him unless they are a really good shot with the tazer and stood a bloody long way away.
And are you really suggesting PCs go back to having a disarming smile and an air of authority to defend themselves? I don't like the idea of everyone having firearms but they should have something.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I know a fire arms trained officer. He is amazed that people will still want to fight when he has the “big stick” out, but the sight of the taser is normally enough to bring people to their senses. Yet the big stick does significantly more damage (unless you happen to be soaked in petrol).
He is also one of the steadiest people that I know. I guess that you have to be to deal with some of the situations that he find himself in. One of his best lines was “I’ll take a knife of somebody, but dirty nappies took some getting used to.”
“Take a knife off somebody”. Think about it... It is his job to disarm somebody who given the chance could kill him.
Posted 2 years ago # -
'tazers are potentially lethal'
As is this pen, my phone and my little finger.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Does the world actually need someone who sniffs petrol ? No. So what is all the fuss about.
Dangerous dogs get put down, why not dangerous people.
Posted 2 years ago # -
QUICK TAZER SAMURI he has admitted being armed and dangerous
Posted 2 years ago # -
How about a new sport - mountain biking with Tazers. Like paintball, but on a bike and will hurt loads more.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Must ..... avoid ..... commenting ....
Posted 2 years ago # -
It's not clear from this thread why the police were present at all.
The aboriginal community in Oz has huge social deprivation problems, many of them treaceable back to British colonialism, and resulting in drug dependency and alcohol and substance abuse.
But what made a normally unremarkable, private, petrol sniffing habit into a public issue for police involvement and explosive tasering?
I genuinely want to know
Posted 2 years ago # -
eldridge - Member
It's not clear from this thread why the police were present at all.I'm guessing that someone may have called them....
Regarding Wacking people with sticks, until the old wooden truncheon was withdrawn from service, which as I recall was on the back of PC Blakelock being hacked to death, the plod were pretty much totally unable to defend themselves, due to the fact that the truncheon was pretty much like an iron bar and inflicted horrendous damage when used. Therefore very few bother to even carry one let alone use it. The issue of the side handled baton, and subsequently the asp and various other non lethal defensive weapons has changed that completely. However, as always there is an escalation where the naughty boys go away and come back with bigger sticks, (in this case knives) so the plod have to react accordingly, which is now pretty much universal wearing of stab proof vests, and weapons that enable them to stand off further when dealing with potentially violent people.
Personally, I like living in a relatively safe society. Much of the fact that I do, like it or not, is down to the Police and the way they do their job. That being the case, and because I don't want to have to deal with the dregs of society personally, I'm quite happy to have the plod given the tools they need to do the job on my behalf. Much like the squaddies in Afgan. If you send them there on in your stead you have to give them the kit. Not an open ended cheque book, but reasonable in relation to what they have to deal with.
Pretty straightforward really. So hands up the next STW poster who is prepared to deal with a drugged up nutter running at them with a can of petrol and a lighter with nothing more than a stick 12 inches long, which you will almost certainly get reprimanded for using if you harm the person concerned.
PS: No flaming theres petrol about
Posted 2 years ago # -
It's not clear from this thread why the police were present at all.
well it says in the article:
...they went to the community of Warburton, about 1,500 km (950 miles) north-east of Perth, in response to a complaint.
so I'm guessing someone called them?
And as for...
The aboriginal community in Oz has huge social deprivation problems, many of them treaceable back to British colonialism, and resulting in drug dependency and alcohol and substance abuse.
while this is undoubtably true, I fail to see it's relevance.
Are you suggesting that the officers should have debated the socio-political history of the Australian Aboriginals with regard to the influence of western colonialism, and then tazered him?Posted 2 years ago # -
so I'm guessing someone called them?
About what? Someone sniffing petrol?
Its still not clear why they were there, and what made this particular loony charge the police with a bottle of petrol and a lighter
What I object to is the sense on here, which GrahamS so clearly communicates, that this is an uppity Abo who got what he deserved
Posted 2 years ago # -
WTF? Where did I say or even imply any such thing???
From the scarce facts in the article I'd conclude that man with a history of violence ran at police with the clear intent of causing them serious physical harm and was met with a reasonable force that had unfortunate consequences.
I don't think anyone even mentioned his ethnicity until you brought it up.
Posted 2 years ago # -
his ethnicity
read the original article, which tiptoes around the issue
Posted 2 years ago # -
Because it isn't relevant and you are trolling. The only person calling him an "uppity Abo" is you.
Everyone else seems to me to be talking about what degree of "reasonable force" is appropriate for a police officer.
Posted 2 years ago # -
"Reasonable force" is absolutely OK
But why were they there?
Don't tell me "because there was a complaint"
A complaint of what?
Who complained about what criminal activity to cause the police to turn up in force?
And the tag at the top of this post says, "sounds like he deserved it"
Deserved 10% burns?
Posted 2 years ago # -
Who complained about what criminal activity to cause the police to turn up in force?
All I have are the facts presented in the article. If you have any to add then please go right ahead.
If you are asking me to randomly speculate without any further details then I would reluctantly guess that, given he reportedly has a history of violence and substance abuse, then a likely scenario is that someone was concerned for their own or someone else's safety and called the police.
Why do YOU think they were called?
Posted 2 years ago # -
Try visiting an Aboriginal settlement (which I have done, briefly) and not be utterly confounded by most things they get up to.
They've had the industrialised western world thrust upon them and so many simply never cope.
Alcohol is banned so maybe sniffing petrol might do it for some.
Being confronted by a police officer, with or without a taster would have seen the red mist descend, but you have to see it purely from the officer's view point - you're about to be doused with petrol and set alight by a mad Aboriginal nutter high on God-knows-what.
A no-brainer surely, zap him and be quick about it.
PS - Ozzie police have carried side arms for years.Posted 2 years ago # -
Do you know until mentioned by the righteous trollster I had not twigged the fact that the victim/perp in this was an "abo". I have to say that now I do know that it doens't make the slightest difference to my viewpoint. In fact I don't understand any reason trolling apart why it should.
Posted 2 years ago #
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.
