Aaron

Jordon Begley inquest: Taser and restraint 'contributed' to death

Recommended Posts

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-33373531

An unarmed man died partly as a result of being "inappropriately and unreasonably" Tasered and restrained by police officers, an inquest has found.

Seems hard to judge without all the facts but it really doesn't sit well with me. Seems like they dealt with a difficult situation with somebody drunk, high and highly volatile with an unfortunate outcome which lead to every move being scrutinized to the nth degree by people who have never been in such a situation, will never understand the emotions and thoughts of those involved at the time.

Edited by Aaron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right.

 

I've been in plenty of situations where, due to 'perceptual distortion', time has seemingly run at a completely random pace.

 

I was at a job recently where I called for assistance and it seemed like 5 minutes went by before it arrived.  It was 30 seconds - as measured by the control room.

 

There was a lot going on at this incident, and sometimes, I would say that it's difficult for an average person to understand quite how a brain figures out time when it finds itself in a high stress situation.  I guess the defence didn't convince the jury.

 

TASER is a less lethal device, and it's saved me enough times to enable me to go home at the end of a shift.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-33373531

An unarmed man died partly as a result of being "inappropriately and unreasonably" Tasered and restrained by police officers, an inquest has found.

Seems hard to judge without all the facts...

That's what the jury did. They heard all the facts over five weeks, considered all those facts and delivered their findings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what the jury did. They heard all the facts over five weeks, considered all those facts and delivered their findings.

True, but the problem is that often people on juries and certain tribunals have never been in any type of situation which is remotely similar to those frequently   faced by police officers, soldiers and members of the various emergency services.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of people on juries haven't ever been murdered or raped, however they still go on in cases like that, to consider the facts and deliver the findings. It's not a prerequisite to have to have experienced those circumstances. 

 

In fact that's likely to contribute to a level of bias that isn't desirable. To my mind it's far better that a 'third person' or 'man in the street' assesses those facts rather than someone with prior experience. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think in future all police should ask for the full medical history and details of recent drug and alcohol intake of anyone that they might want to lay hands on.  As an added precaution each police patrol should have its own paramedic attached should anything go tits up, although ideally the CAS crew should also give pre-emptive written consent for any use of force in case poor Johny has any medical history which would be exacerbated by police contact, although their own drug and alcohol intake would of course be ignored for that purpose.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the BBC page...

 

"

In damning conclusions, the jury said the officer who pulled the Taser trigger, PC Terence Donnelly, "inappropriately and unreasonably" used the stun gun for longer than was necessary.

'Minimal resistance'

The jury said PC Donnelly pulled the trigger for eight seconds which was "not reasonable in the circumstances".

After Mr Begley struggled and was restrained by armed police they were "more concerned with their own welfare than his," they added."

 

 

Damning conclusions (the BBC's words) - so it was innapropriate and unreasonable to discharge the TASER for 8 seconds.  In my experience from pulling the trigger to somebody hitting the floor isn't immediate.  It can take a short period of time for them to go down, and then you've got to get to the subject, because, once you've turned the power off, the subject is back to behaving as he did before you decided that you had to pull the trigger......it's not clear from the report whether that's a single 8 second discharge, or a 5 second one and then a follow up.......

 

And oddly, the officers had concerns about how they all were - probably something like "is everybody ok?", whilst dealing with a bloke who moments before was a considerable threat.  Well shame on them for looking out for each other after dealing with a violent situation. 

 

I wonder if 'excited delerium' played a part in his death...........

 

 

The death needed looking into, but if a jury is going to say that 8 seconds is unreasonable, then they must have a basis for knowing what would have been reasonable with which to guage the unreasonableness..........

 

 

 

In the days before TASER I wonder how the situation would have been dealt with............

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think (hope) people are getting hot under the collar not because of the findings but how it was reported. If not I can only think that some people's opinion is that no one should question the actions of the police including when someone had died.

Had the headline been, 'Man's anger and intoxication contributed to his own death'. With a comment about the use of Taser down in paragraph nine some people's blood pressures wouldn't be so high.

But I guess that headline wouldn't attract so many readers.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have a problem with people questioning our actions.............but if they're going to tell us we've been unreasonable and innapropriate, then I think that they should also tell us how we should have dealt with the incident and tell us what would have been reasonable and appropriate.

 

Maybe the IPCC will tell us.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think (hope) people are getting hot under the collar not because of the findings but how it was reported. If not I can only think that some people's opinion is that no one should question the actions of the police including when someone had died.

Had the headline been, 'Man's anger and intoxication contributed to his own death'. With a comment about the use of Taser down in paragraph nine some people's blood pressures wouldn't be so high.

But I guess that headline wouldn't attract so many readers.

I'm just annoyed that decisions made in the heat of a violent incident have been second guessed and gone over with a fine touch comb for 5 weeks.  The coroner has made recommendations but what are they, will they be applied and if so how?  

 

Police work does require oversight and scrutiny particularly where deaths or serious injury results but I still get annoyed by relaxed second guessing of fast moving incidents.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are 3 hidden replies in this thread that you do not currently have access to as a Guest User of our forum. To unlock the forum register for an account for FREE today by clicking HERE

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.