Police shot dead man with Taser in what could be a case of mistaken identity...

[edam]

poor man was killed by a police Taser. Now there are claims it was mistaken identity.

Why was he Tasered anyway? The police claimed they would only be used in situations where lives were at risk.

Even if it was someone they were looking for, the police must be warned very strongly that Tasers are not toys. They can be lethal. An officer who uses a Taser can't tell whether someone has a heart condition, or other vulnerability.

In civil law, negligence works on the basis of 'take your victim as you find him' - i.e. if someone dies from a blow because they have an exceptionally thin skull, that doesn't reduce your negligence. You chose to hit him or her or do whatever it is that was wrong - it's your look-out if that action has consequences you didn't expect. Same should apply here.

I think it's dangerous to draw conclusions based upon a Daily Mail article.

It's hardly the bastion of truthful and unbiased reporting.

That said, I'm sure the IPCC will be asking questions such as why it was necessary to send 10 officers when her mum is claiming her son was being compliant?

Of course mistakes are entirely possible. Who knows the real truth. That's why the IPCC are there and they are the ones tasked to find out what happened.

At least with tasers it logs exactly when it was fired and for how long it was deployed for.

If there was no justification then the officer who pulled the trigger should of course be charged.

something doesn't quite add up with that article. be interesting to hear the other side

BBC article quoting the police as aware of claims of mistaken identity, but not aware of any evidence to support those claims.

We'll have to wait for outcome of investigation, as it does seem very unclear. And a dreadful thing for the family.

Yeah I know everyone hates the Mail but it's interesting to see their take on it as they are generally in favour of the forces of law and order.

Tasers are being used far more widely than originally proposed, which is worrying because they can be lethal.

Haven't read mail article. read bbc one though.

Wouldn't be at all surprised to find police fucked it all up, killed wrong bloke, lied about it, and IPCC will find they did no wrong only to be dragged up on it in a few years.

After all that's happened with the police (mainly met) and the IPCC as well frankly when it comes to stuff like this I simply don't trust any of them any more.

IPCC is under restructuring or something isn't it, after being (shocker) found to be not impartial, not bothering to investigate things properly and coming down on the side of the police the whole time.

Sounds like they have really fucked up but, have no fear, "lessons will be learned."

Tasers are being given to officers more often due to the rise in firearm and knife incidents that are taking place. I don't think anyone can know what happened in this incident but I'm sure the ipcc will investigate it thoroughly.

As an aside, tasers are considered lower level on the scale of use of force than a baton.

Why this trust and faith in the IPCC?

I don't feel it, and would be interested to understand why others do.

I live in London so maybe more here with met and ipcc scandals?

I guess I'm not sure that everything happens exactly as reported in the press. Who else is there, GMP can't investigate. The mans mother allegedly called the police saying he had a knife then says he was compliant, not holding a knife and fully compliant. People tend to be very compliant when they have a red dot on them from a taser.

The report in the mail Edam refers too sounds two officers arrived then 8 more showed up shortly after, that sounds like an urgent assistance call. The bruising and things referred to sound like the description of bruising from handcuffs being put on while someone is resisting or fighting.

I've no direct experience of the IPCC so in the absence of that, there's no real reason for me to distrust them. Sure I read stuff in the papers like everyone else does but then personally I try to consider that the police have an incredibly hard job to do where often life or death decisions have to be made in a split second.

So that's why I try not to prejudge before all the facts have come out.

I'm also mindful that family members are often far from impartial. I remember a while back that some solicitor had gone on a shooting rampage, exchanging shots in a running gun battle with officers. He was shot dead but the family feel the police shouldn't have shot him. Personally I cannot think of a more black & white case of when the police should use guns.

I'm just a bit skeptical why for an alleged routine 'domestic dispute' that 10 officers were dispatched if he was really so compliant. And that an officer would deploy a taser on a compliant subject when as I understand it any use is registered and investigated.

I'm not saying it's possible there's some sort of cover up. Just that there are lots of things which don't make sense and hence that's why the IPCC should investigate and report back rather than 'Trial by Daily Mail'

The IPCC has what you might very generously describe as a rather tarnished record. They are sometimes not independent - many investigators being ex-coppers - and sometimes do not actually carry out anything that even begins to resemble an investigation. The only reason anyone would trust the IPCC would be if you'd never come across it before and didn't do any research before making a decision.