UKC

Gutted to hear that one of my childhood heroes has died after being tasered by police. Apparently suffering from physical and mental health issues, he threatened his own father. The police were called and he was tasered three times before going into cardiac arrest. Horrific for him and for his family. No suggestion that the police did anything wrong, but Dalian's brother has suggested that ambulances should be called immediately whenever the police have to deploy tasers.

Anyway, I'll always remember him for this: youtube.com/watch?v=6A9G6RVkepg&

I'd kill for just one player of his talent at the Villa today. That whole team was littered with club legends.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

'I'd kill for just one player of his talent at the Villa today'

Perhaps not the most appropriate turn of phrase given the circumstances?

Outstanding talent on his day.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

Great goal, yes. Sad he wasn't able to get the help he needed.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

A terrible business.
Too young to remember it at the time, I watched "that" goal. Fine piece of work.

I second Dalian Atkinson's brother in feeling that ambulances should be involved after a tazer's been used. An opinion I've held for some time. Might prevent tragedies such as this.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

I think that the taser is considered a non lethal alternative to firearms, I suspect a better description might be sub lethal?

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:
It's a tragic incident.

Not entirely sure what the call for involvement of ambulances is supposed to be.
Taser is a limited issue item of PPE. Short of having an ambulance follow around every officer with Taser there is no practical way of having an ambulance involved until there is some form of medical emergency.
That medical emergency might occur following any use of force by the police, and often can occur without any use of force at all.
Particularly as the police are (edit to clarify ) "often" the first port of call to those suffering medical emergencies, whether self-inflicted or due to illness.

In reply to toad:


I think the term is "less lethal" .

In reply to off-duty:
Would it really be that difficult to, as suggested, call an ambulance or alternatively have the tasered individual undergo a quick check up after they'd been secured?

Not sure I like the idea of a Taser being considered PPE. I certainly don't see it as such.

In reply to nathan79:

my first thought. It's a weapon. I think calling it PPE (and I'm guessing that that's how the police term it) is disingenuous. In the hands of a civilian, I'm guessing the police would treat it as a firearm.

If I was electrocuted at work, but suffered no apparent ill effects, there is no way an ambulance would not be called

In reply to nathan79:


Following a taser discharge, almost certainly that person will be going either to custody or to hospital (in the case of obvious mental illness, obvious injury etc)
Realistically if the proposal is for immediate ambulance attendance following taser, then we should require the same for any more harmful use of force - baton, hands etc, or more incapacitating - eg CS.

I suppose its feasible but it would be a big drain on ambulance and possibly NHS resources - for a gain that is likely to be approaching zero.
In previous cases in the UK where Taser is thought to have contributed (i can't think of many) death has occurred very rapidly.


It sits alongside baton, cuff, CS spray and body armour. What do you see it as?

In reply to off-duty:


Weapon


Restraint device


Weapon


PPE


Weapon.

Calling a weapon a piece of PPE is to my mind disingenuous at best. An assault rifle can be used to protect the life of the person holding it; that does not make it PPE. The same goes for less lethal weapons.

Edit: at least one UK police professional body agrees that it's not PPE - http://www.app.college.police.uk/app-content/armed-policing/conducted-energ...

In reply to toad:


It is a firearm. It's also PPE. Unless you are aware of a magic wand that can take people in to custody without injuring me.


If you were electrocuted at work there are a whole heap of issues - not least a health and safety at investigation to figure out why.
If a person is arrested following the use of force then their welfare is of concern and is monitored - but the proposal appears to be to call ambulances to check over people who have no adverse symptoms.

In reply to wintertree:







An unfortunate part of our job is the requirement to take people in to custody. Sometimes they aren't compliant.
Either we have a big old ruck and everyone gets hurt or we use (or more often threaten to use) some of our personal equipment (call it what you will) and we achieve compliance.

We don't get hurt, and in an ideal world they don't either.

If they are going to be non-compliant - we still have to take them into custody - any use of force must be justified under law with the primary rationale usually being to protect yourself.

In a similar fashion a firearms officer will be firing in the face of a lethal threat - to protect themselves or others .

In reply to off-duty:

Are the IPCC automatically involved after someone is injured by a taser?

I don't think the police are qualified to judge if someone has adverse symptoms. We've unfortunately seen (isolated) cases where people have become seriously ill or died in custody because officers have failed to recognise medical conditions.

In reply to wintertree:


Learn something every day.

In reply to toad:


Not sure about injured - bear in mind people are injured far more often in arrests not involving taser.


You're combining custody care and use of force.
If somebody is arrested through use of force and is neither displaying symptoms nor complaining of them - what are medical professionals supposed to do?
Care in custody offices is a massive (and separate) issue - large amount of resource is directed towards preventing injury and a primary cause might be considered to be the very poor provision of emergency mental health care, resulting in people with multiple vulnerabilities ending up in cells as we are the service of last resort.

In reply to off-duty:
sorry, I assumed any one hit by a taser is considered injured. I suppose the question is should the IPCC consider being shot by a taser in the same way as if they had been shot with a gun.

I think my point about police not being able to judge the seriousness of a prisoners health is as valid outside a nightclub as it is inside a cell. I'm broadly in favour of the police having access to tasers, but I am concerned that they are being used too readily - for expediency, rather than as a weapon of last (or should that be penultimate?) resort

In reply to toad:

I'm not sure why - I think its something like 1500 taser discharges per year in the UK and around 7 deaths in 10 years linked to taser, with none of those,following examination, being due to taser discharge.

Edit - actually I think 1 might have been in that the jury at inquest said that Taser and restraint contributed to cardiac arrest, with other factors being - drug use, arguiing with neighbours and confrontation with police.

In reply to toad:

I'm not clear where you are going with this. Provision of medical care in custody is a police matter, as I described above.
Outside a nightclub (despite what many may believe) its not a police matter.
If I have to fight with you to get you in custody, then once you are detained there will be an assessment, unless there is an obvious problem then you'll be heading to custody where you can now be fully controlled and compliant and further assessed (often with medical staff on duty).


It depends what you consider last resort. Would you rather be punched, struck by a baton or CS sprayed (for those might be the other options)

In reply to off-duty:



That's my concern. The discharge of a taser is being considered as an equivalent to other methods of restraint, rather than as some sort of half way house to a firearm, which is I think what it was sold as when it was introduced. It's being used increasingly regularly and too quickly.

Interestingly, from a quick search, there seems to be a dearth of good quality research on the relative use and outcomes of the other techniques you mention compared with taser. It's being taken as a preferable method, without the evidence to support it.

In reply to off-duty:

I agree with all of that. I'm sure on many cases trained use of a taser is safer for all concerned than piling in to a ruck.

It doesn't however make a weapon a piece of PPE. Calling a potentially lethal weapon a piece of PPE smacks of politicking spin and does nobody any credit.

If a civilian owned a taser for self defence the law would not consider it PPE, it would consider it a firearm.

The primary purpose of PPE is protection of the wearer/user. The primary purpose of a taser is incapacitation.

In reply to toad:

I Can't remember exactly how it was introduced, but I think you are right about talking about it as an alternative to a a firearm
I'm not sure what you base the opinion that it is being used too quickly or increasingly regularly on. Certainly it's use escalated rapidly following its introduction - an entirely expected result as the number of officers who were issued it increased.
Now that forces appear to have decided on who will be issued it, the number of uses has remained pretty constant for about 3 years I think.


I'm not entirely sure what research you want to indicate that it isn't very nice getting punched or struck by a baton.
Unless you fall awkwardly you aren't going to be left with bruises or breaks from a taser discharge.
If you are compliant you aren't going to get hurt at all.

In reply to wintertree:





I'll go with work related equipment as you highlighted. The purpose of Taser is the purpose of the person pulling the trigger - eg "protection of self"
The effect of taser is incapacitation, as in a similar way is the effect of CS.

In reply to off-duty:

I almost think I would rather be sprayed by CS gas. Do you know if anybody has ever died from being sprayed by CS gas, or if it's possible to?

In reply to off-duty:




It would appear that there is actually a fair amount of research out there, when you look for it.

Quotes below from "Study of Deaths Following Electro Muscular Disruption", published by the US Department of Justice

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/233432.pdf

the report is overall supportive of the use of Tasers, and recognizes your point that other means of intervening physically have their own risks. However, it raises concerns over multiple or extended discharge of Tasers (15 seconds or more), and their use in people with pacemakers or who have delirium- see below, from page 16:

Significant acidosis can lead to pulseless electrical activity and may be a mechanism of
sudden death in custody. Of particular concern is the possible role that systemic acidosis
may play in addition to any metabolic abnormalities or drug intoxication seen in excited
delirium, as discussed elsewhere in this report. Further study is required in this area. Until
the role of CEDs with respect to respiration has been researched fully, it would be
appropriate for law enforcement personnel, when possible, to refrain from continuous
activations of longer than 15 seconds. In any case, it is recommended that the medical
condition of the individual be constantly monitored during and after CED exposure,
regardless of the duration of exposure.

And regarding review by health after use- on page 34:

Medical screening. Some form of medical screening is recommended after all CED
exposures starting at the scene of the incident. This may take the form of jail intake medical
screening, evaluation by emergency medical service (EMS) providers in the field, or by
hospital emergency department personnel.

The US Department of Justice report is clear- all people struck by Tasers should receive a medical review. With only 1500 discharges a year this should be achievable without placing undue stress on medical services. Given that lethal outcome is recognised from Taser discharge, and the intense scrutiny that follows death from police interventions, i'd have thought the police themselves would be arguing for this outcome

In reply to off-duty:

I'm not having a go at you personally but tragically another black man has died at the hands of the Police. And whatever conclusions are arrived at after the investigation that thought will remain with a number of people.

In reply to Timmd:


"CS gas" covers a range of different things. For pure CS gas there is some evidence pointing towards long term lung damage although that seems mostly in riot situations eg lots of it lobbed around as opposed to individual arrests. One problem though is peoples susceptibility varies massively. Having had the pleasure of NBC training culminating in taking the respirator of in a room of cs gas I was about average in terms of needing to exit stage left. A handful of people pretty much shrugged and waited till they were bored.

In reply to I like climbing:


As you say - some people are so stupid or fixed in their opinion that they will choose to believe that opinion, regardless of facts, and often to the detriment of making any actual improvements to anything that has gone wrong, preferring to fixate on the idea that the only reason Atkinson has died is because he is black and it must be some sort of deliberate act by the police, motivated by that fact.

I'm not entirely sure about "died at the hands of the police" - unless you happen to know the circumstances of what took place and the result of any post mortem and inquest.

Personally it seems very early for speculation and blame after something so tragic.

In reply to off-duty:
"Realistically if the proposal is for immediate ambulance attendance following taser, then we should require the same for any more harmful use of force - baton, hands etc, or more incapacitating - eg CS."

Come on thats not true.

We know electric shocks affect heart rhythm.. it's a much greater risk.

I'm not sure I agree that any discharge should mean an ambulance but there is a greater risk.

Really tragic incident.

In reply to Roadrunner5:





I think thats the key to the argument. The reality is that there is zero evidence that taser presents a greater risk than any other use of force.
In fact on the contrary it appears that using Taser presents less risk as per the data in the link no_more_scotch_eggs posted.

UK figures show that there has been only one case in ten years where an Inquest jury (as opposed to medical professionals ) believe that Taser has had a "material" contribution in a "medical" manner to a person death.


Yes.

In reply to off-duty:




Hopefully an independent post-mortem will take place.
I say this because a (white) neighbour to the "incident" was interviewed on local TV and she stated that Dalian Atkinson was kicked repeatedly in the chest whilst lying on the ground after the tasering, by both the two Officers involved.
If bruising is found to corroborate this then surely they must be investigated for Murder, however it appears that at present neither have even been suspended.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

Remember Dalian Atkinson all too well from the league Cup semi against Tranmere. Crucial late goals in both legs. Devastated at the time, but he was a class player and it's terrible that his life should end so early, and like this.

In reply to fred99:




I don't know the full details of what she has allegedly witnessed, however my understanding is that she has already given a number of different accounts to the media.
Hopefully she has also provided a statement to investigators in between her media appearances.
That can then be taken into consideration with the accounts from the others who were actually present as well as the recording of the taser activation which will be on the device.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Oh yeah, that's what the thread was about!

I work with a Tranmere supporter who still enjoys hearing about Villa lose. He's been quite in his element of late.

If only Dalian had been more consistent in his effort, he could have done anything he wanted in football.

In reply to off-duty:

I'm not sure a taser would be PPE, in the way safety boots or a hard hat is. By those criteria, a gun may well be considered PPE!

In reply to off-duty:

Especially if the officers had body cams on to dispute her evidence.

In reply to kipper12:


I think it was addressed upthread - "work related equipment" I think is the term.

In reply to Bellie:

It appears that body cams were not worn, and this was mentioned (by the BBC) in a way that inferred it to be unusual.
Somewhat of a pity they were not worn, and if they are now meant to be normally worn, then why not ?
The problem with all of this is that suspicion and conjecture will cause far more trouble than anything else.
Please note - I ask these questions, and my sister, before she retired, was a Police Officer in Telford herself.

In reply to fred99:

I'm not sure how many forces have them. I was surprised my county force has them. I only found out after a friend was recently seriously assaulted by a gang whilst trying to arrest someone. She had a body cam on, so hopefully this will help prosecution.

In reply to off-duty:

I was less than impressed with the idea that weapons can be PPE. I suspect it is taking the mick, however I can see the use of tasters and firearms in selfe defence. That something can be used in self defence, doesn't.t make it PPE.

In reply to off-duty:

Ps

Employers have duties concerning the provision and use of personal protective equipment (PPE) at work.

PPE is equipment that will protect the user against health or safety risks at work. It can include items such as safety helmets, gloves, eye protection, high-visibility clothing, safety footwear and safety harnesses. It also includes respiratory protective equipment (RPE).

Google,PPE,on the HSE website, you won't find teasers mentioned. Above is a direct quote from the hse website.

In reply to kipper12:
As per my previous comments I believe the correct term is "work related equipment".

As far as I know CS spray, baton and cuffs are still classed as PPE though.

As I have previously mentioned the law governing the use of all the above and taser, very briefly summarised, focusses largely on their use for the protection of self or others.

For clarification regarding "health and safety risks at work", in police terms these risks include people actively trying to harm you, or others, or who you are required to take into custody against their will.
Hence rather more PPE than some specs and a hard hat.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Interesting link thanks.


I believe taser operates on a five second cycle and training is that no morec than 8 seconds should be used.







Following a taser discharge they will be given immediate aftercare to some degree by officers. They will then almost certainly be taken to either custody - where (as per policy) they will be seen by the force medical examiner or equivalent, or they will end up in hospital either due to injuries or underlying conditions (nearly always mental health related) if relevant.

In reply to fred99:





Body worn cameras are being rolled out in a number of forces currently, some more than others. West Mercia don't use BWV I believe, but it will undoubtedly be under consideration.

It's a pretty new technology. Stats indicate it massively reduces complaints against police, but a very recent study also suggested it may increase police use of force.
There are also privacy and data handling concerns - for example, it might be fine now but what happens when we start running facial recognition software, live and retrospectively ?

More mundanely I think it was Michael Mansfield who suggested that if it wasn't written down it didn't happen, we are already seeing the assumption that BWV will capture whatever is important or relevant. I can guarantee that won't happen and cases may be lost simply because an officers account and notes are not seen as enough.