Death by Taser

Forums › Off topic › Death by Taser

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#209020 9-Mar-2017 13:45

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11814989

This doesn't look very good to me:

What was the huge hurry in getting this person out of the car?

Is "do what I say - or I'll use what's basically an instrument of torture on you" acceptable from police?

Despite the request/expectation of the judge who allowed this to be released, the article by NZ Herald doesn't give context which seems important to me, was he going to flee and become a danger to anybody else, could the car have been immobilised (ie the cops presumably arrived in cars, and could have blocked the car in).

I have no idea / haven't read about the individual apart from the apparent fact that he'd assaulted his elderly father which clearly isn't a very nice thing to do (understatement) and for which it's hard to imagine anybody would have a lot sympathy even though he died in moments after this video was shot. This looks like brutal police violence - or at best hysterical and inappropriate overreaction to me.

Please assure me I'm wrong - defend what looks indefensible.

1 | 2

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1733742 9-Mar-2017 14:50

The judge said

"Having presided over the trial, I can say that it is incontrovertible that the officers acted in good faith and any suggestion otherwise would be highly actionable."

IANAL but you appear to me to be making a "suggestion otherwise"..!

Dratsab

3946 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1733766 9-Mar-2017 15:33

Here we go...

Image result for if I was a policeman by everyone on the internet

From the Article:

The officers argued, through their lawyer Susan Hughes QC, that the footage "wrongly leads to an assumption, that the actions of the officers caused the death of McPeake".

"It represents only a fraction of the interaction between the officers and McPeake," their lawyer said.

"The officers will be subject to the opprobrium of the public in circumstances which are unjustified. It will undermine the confidence that the public have in the police."

The jury was told throughout the trial nothing any of the officers did had any "causal link" to the death of McPeake, who was described as morbidly obese and suffering ill-health, had alcohol issues, and on the night had taken an array of drugs and was considered potentially armed, dangerous and suicidal.

Exactly what's happening in this thread with the misleading headline about the taser being the cause of death.

Fred99: Is "do what I say - or I'll use what's basically an instrument of torture on you" acceptable from police?

A weapon which is designed to overcome resistance through neuromuscular incapicitation is a lot better than a bullet. From this article we know the offender was on a cocktail of alcohol and drugs, he was considered potentially armed (a crossbow - info from his father - and the baton like instrument used to assault his father) and suicidal. We can't see into the vehicle so we don't know what he had at his disposal. There's no video of the minutes leading up the taser discharges (3 x 5s) so we don't know what the offender has been saying or doing or trying to do.

What we do know is it's easy for armchair experts to take a slice of a few seconds and decide that represents an indefensible position. It clearly was defensible. If you want more detail, perhaps make an OIA request. Ask Susan Hughes QC for more detail. Ask the Judge who made the statement quoted by Geektastic above. Also ask the prosecutor. All these three people are on record as saying there's no causal link between the death and anything the officers did. They all had access to the pathologists report - something which is also lacking here.

Edit: dyslexia

BTR

1527 posts

Uber Geek

#1733771 9-Mar-2017 15:45

If police had concerns for his mental health getting him out of the car and into handcuffs is totally understandable and acceptable. This case is a sad case but I think the police did their best in a situation that they have trained for but when it comes to real world scenarios you never know how they will play out.

Using handcuffs on someone who is mentally ill its bad policing, they are trying to protect the person and themselves from any harm.

@fred99 what would you have done in that situation bearing in mind that you have an upset man with mental issues who weighed 179kg sitting in a vehicle which could be used as a weapon...

Lias

5589 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1733818 9-Mar-2017 16:20

In my younger days I had a few run ins with the law, yet I've never had a dog set on me, been hit, pepper sprayed, tasered or shot by them. The amazingly simple way of achieving this, is when the police tell you to do something, you do it!

I'm a geek, a gamer, a dad, a Quic user, and an IT Professional. I have a full rack home lab, size 15 feet, an epic beard and Asperger's. I'm a bit of a Cypherpunk, who believes information wants to be free and the Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it. If you use my Quic signup you can also use the code R570394EKGIZ8 for free setup.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1733823 9-Mar-2017 16:28

BTR:

@fred99 what would you have done in that situation bearing in mind that you have an upset man with mental issues who weighed 179kg sitting in a vehicle which could be used as a weapon...

I'm only going on what I can see in that article - and the video clip.

He doesn't seem to be a danger to anybody at that point in time although presumably the cops wanted to arrest him for a violent offense.

I presume it was obvious that he was mentally disturbed (and under the influence of drugs) at the time.

The video is not complete, so based only on what I can see there, he was warned to get out or he'd be tasered. There was a delay of only 2-3 seconds following the warning to "get out of the car etc or else" and the officer firing the taser. During that very brief time, I don't see him doing anything threatening at all, both hands are clearly visible, according to the NZ herald, he's "lighting a cigarette" - hardly threatening IMO.

What the Judge said was:

"Having presided over the trial, I can say that it is incontrovertible that the officers acted in good faith and any suggestion otherwise would be highly actionable."

He also said he was unable to see how the release of the Taser footage would "unfairly pre-empt any findings" of an IPCA or employment inquiry.

I accept that the fact that he was tasered a few minutes before he died doesn't mean the cause of death was tasering. What was the cause of death? Being obese and drugged isn't a "cause of death".

I was first on the scene of a situation like this a year ago, with an uncooperative offender in a car who refused to follow instructions to remove himself from a car, was intoxicated, abusive, and trying to escape by starting the car and driving away. One policeman (plain clothes detective) handled the situation on his own, without use of taser, and with admirable restraint, giving a series of clear and increasingly insistent instructions which weren't followed before grabbing the fellow by the arm, dragging him out and cuffing him.

While I can't disagree with the judge's opinion that the police "acted in good faith" here - because I don't know what he does about the case, if he allowed release of the video with expectation that it should portray the police in good light, I think he's made a serious mistake. That looks dreadful - and if the situation actually was as shown, then I hope the IPCA at least comes up with a recommendation for better training. Arresting uncooperative drugged and/or mentally disturbed people is routine police work. IMO that was not good (at least as seen in the video).

gzt

17111 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1733914 9-Mar-2017 19:33

A senior police dog officer:

Setting two police dogs on to a man sitting in his stationary car was inappropriate, according to the country's top police dog officer.

Southall told the court police were not trained to deploy dogs into vehicles due to the confined space, the fact the offender could attack the dog, or drive away, or may have another dog in the vehicle. "Deploying two dogs into the vehicle in this situation was inappropriate," Southall said, after being shown footage of the incident taken on Taser camera.

There is currently unfinished and yet to come:
- Police employment matter
- Independent Police Complaints Authority investigation
- Coroner's Report into the death

Batman

Mad Scientist
29761 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1733919 9-Mar-2017 19:43

Unfortunately police are humans, - there are good persons and nasty persons, and they have good days and bad days.

Sometimes people pick nasty people as presidents too.

Example of being human in various situations:

- mechanic having a bad day, your car goes back to the shop for a week and you have to take the bus

- pilot having a bad day, flies into the mountain and kills a hundred over people

- all black has a bad day, Steve Hansen gets upset

But nonetheless, it is shameful for the police because either bad cop or bad day, caused the death of a father, son, brother, friend.

Tradepub

Free professional, reference and technical white papers (affiliate link).

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1733941 9-Mar-2017 20:01

Geektastic:

The judge said

"Having presided over the trial, I can say that it is incontrovertible that the officers acted in good faith and any suggestion otherwise would be highly actionable."

IANAL but you appear to me to be making a "suggestion otherwise"..!

You're taking what Judge Cooper said out of context. He was referencing media reporting to the contrary to the likely to be highly actionable. Ordinary people are not bound by the same rules that, for example, the Press Council imposes on the news media. In any event, Judge Cooper's views in this instance are obita dicta and not binding on any other judge or jury deciding a defamation suit. Beyond this point, given what I've seen, I like the OP also share a degree of concern over the officers' conduct. Unlike almost all posters on here, I actually know the police's rules on the use of the taser very well and have been involved in litigation involving the use of tasers and there are concerning aspects to this video. Moreover, in light of recent IPCA reports strong findings that the police have misused the taser in various instances, reasonable humans should await the results of the IPCA and coroner reports.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1733955 9-Mar-2017 20:29

The title of this thread appears to be erroneous as the cause of death has not been determined.

Sam91

620 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1733957 9-Mar-2017 20:30

The only justification for tasering him is if they thought he was armed, and according to the article that was a very real possibility. Otherwise there's no need to taser him, you're going to have to drag him out of the car with or without the taser.

At least we're not in the US, the video below is really shocking, particularly the shots following the first shots. A taser would've been perfect in this situation.

Warning: you may find the video disturbing

gzt

17111 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1733967 9-Mar-2017 20:46

Going on the news photos of the car parking and description the location is Perfume Point, Napier, looking towards the port.

jpoc

1043 posts

Uber Geek

#1734014 9-Mar-2017 21:28

The United Nations has ruled that a Taser is an instrument of torture.

The NZ government introduced Tasers on the basis that they were a less lethal option than shooting people dead.

I think that, in this situation, there is only one important question:

If the police officer only had recourse to a gun, would he have been justified in law to shoot the man dead?

If you think that a police officer would have been justified in shooting the man dead then the use of the Taser was totally OK and you cannot possibly accuse the police of any wrongful action.

If you think that shooting the guy dead would have been over the top then the only conclusion can be that the police intentionally tortured a citizen to the extent that he died and that cannot possibly be lawful.

cadman

1014 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1734075 9-Mar-2017 23:21

Tazer use should be solely reserved for situations where there is an imminent danger to a person or property, not for mere slow or non-compliance. That's clearly not the case here.

And to think some people want these over-zealous muppets routinely carrying lethal weapons on their person.

UHD

655 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1734105 10-Mar-2017 00:04

This is tragic. I'm quite disappointed in the judge's findings as I believe police should always look to deescalate situations like this and an intense shouting/loudhailer match before use of tasers is not that at all. If the guy had been at all violent at the scene or an actual threat to police/public (he was alone in an empty car park) then it would have been potentially justified. Instead of threatening police or the public he had simply not complied with their wishes for likely very good reasons (alcohol, drugs, mental health issues) which police were aware of already.

The very large guy was sitting in the front seat of a tiny car and was supposedly a threat because he might have a crossbow. I'm surely not the only one who has actually used a crossbow before and knows operating one in a space like that is impossible - even to accidentally discharge. They are unwieldy and a royal pain to operate under ideal circumstances. Nothing at all like a loaded firearm or knife or even a garden trowel which could be actual threats to police/public.

All the officers needed to do was remove the keys from the ignition (if they were present) and manhandle the man out of the vehicle - which would have to happen either way due to his established non-compliance/non-comprehension.

He was obviously under the influence of alcohol and drugs with the possibility of severe mental issues. Would anyone in those circumstances willingly comply with police directions? The police already know the answer to this question is 99% of the time no. It is a pain in the ass for them but that is the job and there were several of them on scene throughout.

If they were able to approach the vehicle, smash both side windows, and open the driver door at least once without fearing too much for their lives from a crossbow (from a distance the man could theoretically lean out of the car and operate the crossbow somewhat effectively) then surely two of the officers taking an arm each and forcing him out of the car is not any more of a risk. Especially given that a crossbow would need both hands to be operated.

I understand police are people too but I think there need to be consequences for actions like this which I feel border on negligence. I've successfully manhandled a 6' mate of mine on a really bad acid trip to stop him putting his head through a second pane of glass after reasoning failed to work so I would think several police officers with training should be able to manhandle one man. Utterly ridiculous and tragic.

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1734109 10-Mar-2017 00:49

jpoc:

The United Nations has ruled that a Taser is an instrument of torture.

The NZ government introduced Tasers on the basis that they were a less lethal option than shooting people dead.

I think that, in this situation, there is only one important question:

If the police officer only had recourse to a gun, would he have been justified in law to shoot the man dead?

If you think that a police officer would have been justified in shooting the man dead then the use of the Taser was totally OK and you cannot possibly accuse the police of any wrongful action.

If you think that shooting the guy dead would have been over the top then the only conclusion can be that the police intentionally tortured a citizen to the extent that he died and that cannot possibly be lawful.

On that basis we may as well issue the police with Remington pump actions loaded with less than lethal options like beanbag rounds...!

That aside, we cannot really know what went on so it's hard to comment. I have little sympathy in general for people given instructions by the police who ignore those instructions - that is the fastest way to escalate the response of the police to the issue at hand I am sure. If you ignore clear instructions and then don't like the outcome, that counts as self inflicted in most cases IMV.

1 | 2