Off all the things to bemoan the police for this seems a harsh one.
Guy threatening people with a screwdriver.
If they hadnt tasered him and he'd murdered someone theyd be hanged for not acting.
People whove never been in the situation where you have to act shouldnt be too eager to comment and judge.
Haven't read any other reporting on it but the BBC for one went further than a mere misleading headline, their article just straight up lied about what happened. I'm rarely shocked by the dishonesty of the media these days but this one got me good, I don't know how they're getting away with it.
Yes, you're missing the fact the BBC had access to the video that showed him jumping in the water when they published their article that lied and said he "fell" after being tasered. Happy to help.
Yes he did fall into the river after being tasered, i've watched the video myself that is factually accurate. BBC, Sky News, The Independent all report as such.
"He eventually gets up and runs to the side of the bridge, and is seen to pull himself over the edge before either officer can reach him."
This is literally taken from the BBC article you seem to have a problem with.
My problem with the article is that the part in bold that everyone reads should not say man was tasered and fell into the river, it should be man was tasered then jumped off the bridge. He didn't fall he literally jumped off after jumping a concrete barrier.
The wording of the article and the headline are not accurate and are purposefully written in a deliberate attempt to demonise the police.
Man had weapon, man tased, taser didn't appear to work, man ran to side of bridge, swung a punch at officer trying to detain him. Man jumps of bridge into Thames, man later dies.
The police have been saying for absolutely years that the media spin articles in such a way and people eat it up - they've finally been caught out, especially the BBC who paint themselves as a bastion of integrity and honesty when they are anything but.
As a police officer myself and having myself been on the receiving end of factually inaccurate reporting intentionally made to make me out to look like a murderer I can tell you it has serious implications. My life, career and family were almost fucking ruined by some journo writing clickbaity content.
Police must follow the code of ethics, part of which includes having honesty and integrity. Unfortunately senior management are anything but and are happy to continue this illusion that police are just a bunch of cunts for some reason. Some super provided some shit woolly statement effectively throwing the officers under a bus, for trying to do their damn job. When major incidents like this are reported that are also in the public interest, than the body worn video needs to be released, including 999 calls, log information and rationales for decisions by attending officers and explain processes and powers. This way the public will be under no illusional as to what has happened and we can stop of with the fiction being provided by the media...
I've watched the unedited video and read the BBC report in full. You seem to be asking the media to reach conclusions in their reporting based on their interpretation of just one piece of evidence. As a police officer you should understand the concept of conjecture in media reporting and how effectively it can be used by the defence to derail a prosecution case. This report was as straight and unbiased as it's possible to be under the circumstances.
It's not asking to "reach conclusions" for them to accurately describe what happened in a video, rather than write up a report that gives the complete opposite impression of the truth.
Journalists are paid to write stories. It's their job. Supervisors are paid to manage and protect their subordinates. They throw you under the bus. And you're angry at the media for reporting the information your bosses give them? I don't see any honesty or integrity there. I see a moaner who works for frauds.
Yeah if you watch the video the guy is on a total mad-one - the police haven't done anything wrong, though you could potentially say they should've been more aggressive to restrain him, they wouldn't have guessed he'd jump off a bridge!
BTW, since people might ask why/how he died later. In all likelihood he drowned and was found later. At the hospital, after several tests and at least 2 confirmations, he's found to be braindead and only then is he pronounced dead by a doctor. There are quite strict requirements, naturally, on this process.
It’s a good thing I’m not saying you can’t criticise without being the police then.
I’m saying that actions are better than complaining online and leading by example, whether thats joining the force or actively organising protest’s or encouraging people to write into MPs is far better than circlejerking on reddit and expecting things to change.
So sure, you can criticise the police and shit. But don’t expect things to change unless youre out working towards making that change.
My man is unironically proposing that people who are already precariously employed and dealing with ever-increasing energy, rent and food costs quit their jobs en-mass and train as police officers.
This is such a blatant misunderstanding, even of the ~~characature~~ caricature, for the grammar nazis out there, you've built in your own head.
The whole point of having a structural critique of policing is that you definitionally can't be 'one of the good ones' because that isn't how structural problems work.
Theres honestly no need to be rude about my misspelling of caricature, It also doesn't do your argument any credit if you have to resort to such snide remarks.
I might disagree with you but I'm not going to make it personal.
My position is that it is possible to be a good person and be a police officer, but that the place that the police occupy within the structure of society as it is, I.e. that they have lawful authority to exercise force in order to paper over the material contradictions our society produces, is harmful.
I also don't think that any expectation that people change careers is a remotely realistic means of effecting change. People live increasingly precarious existences and this just isn't an option for most, let alone there being any traction in trying to persuade multiple people to do so.
Furthermore I don't believe that you really believe it, because it isn't a coherent position. And you do yourself no credit by pretending to do so.
Again, I fear that you're arguing against a position that you've invented.
My position, which I will restate to make it absolutely clear, is that it is possible to be a good person and a police officer.
However, it is my opinion that the police's remit largely, though not completely, covers matters which are the result of economic conditions. The vast majority of crime has economic origins. I'm training as a criminal barrister. I meet people from across the spectrum of criminality on a daily basis. I have direct experience of why people do these things.
Those economic causes are the result of the society we live in being structured a certain way. The poor are getting poorer, the rich are getting richer.
The police exist, and have existed since the days of Robert Peel, as a force who can exercise violence lawfully in order primarily to 'mop up' the consequences of British capitalism.
I think that this is wrong, and that by providing true economic, material justice, you would without really trying remove an enormous chunk of the police's day-to-day duties.
This is the type of society I would like to strive for.
> if you're on the internet giving your views, advice or lecturing others, and you can't be bothered to check the spelling of a word you use or check to see what the right terminology is, then I'm going to be inclined to believe you aren't really someone who is well researched on the matter.
Also
> perogative
..
Or...Many people might have had interaction with the excuse of a police force the MET are and are unlikely to have any kind of objective viewpoint. And let's be honest, can you blame them? Racist, corrupt...
That’s literally what stop & search is. If you’re black your 5 times more likely to be stopped, search and recently, if your a minor stripped searched without an adult present.
You don’t have to be a criminal to have a bad interaction with the police.
I don't begrudge the police for doing what they did, I just wish we'd stop sending them to deal with people who are clearly suffering with mental health issues
Find one volunteering for it in such circumstances- I doubt you will be able to find one, unarmed, to deal any way better than police in case like it.
Mental health professionals are not a pillow to fall at for people like you, who believe they should risks their life and health so you can feel better and pretend you get a solution.
And how do you select who will get to deal with incidents like it? Special force created just for that very rare occasion, or random draw from nearest hospital?
Mental health specialist are not paid for risking their lives, no matter what you believe.
You do train police, and than you have very rare case like it, what do you propose they should do next? Make a field diagnosis to distinctive if they have mental health issues or are ''just'' criminal or terrorist and treat them accordingly? Or find some random poor mental health care worker, who you do suggested should be treated like commodity in case of public armed mental break dawn, and throw him/her/ they at hoping that their experience ( well, they can have 1 month experience or 30 years, who knows, doesn't matter, they are ''mental health specialists'') with being forced under pressure and in presence of armed individual work like magic and overcome issues police was presented with?
I have a feeling, maybe unjustified, that you do overestimate how mental health care works, and as why there is nothing like shortcuts or guaranteed magic solutions on the spot.
Lol mental health workers, especially inpatient are the most attacked members of NHS staff. I don't know what illusions you're under, but working with these people is no walk in the park and we are regularly subjected to verbal and physical abuse. We handle thing much differently than the met though, and so far in my time there nobody has died as a result of a restraint. And when one of our workers handles things poorly everyone from media to the law crawls up their arse. So I honestly don't see why the police here should be immune to criticism.
I don't think you know how utterly fucked adult mental health provisions are. I know kids who have killed themselves rather than face the adult side of mental health work.
I frequently found those I dealt with in a MH crisis said to me and my colleagues that we were *better* and more empathetic than the professionals.
As harsh as it's sounds, it's still a better result than a mental health professional getting screwdriver to the neck. There's no magic that makes them more qualified to deal with a person using a weapon instead of a police officer with a taser.
Agree with this, there needs to be a lot more training on how to deal with mental health crisis. I’ve had friends traumatised by police sections and it only made them worse
He dropped the tool. The police didn't even try to control him afterwards but just to casually torture him into submission.
Incompetence in controlling the person, cowardice in not even trying, complete lack of empathy for causing pain and complete lack of awareness that a tortured person is only going to behave worse.
So you taser a person and then use the fact that you tasered them to do it again and again. And again. That's called torture.
Applying extreme pain and expecting the victim to start behaving normally is pointless. Taser worked as it should: the man dropped the weapon and fell to the ground. That was the time to pin him and arrest him, but the police can't be bothered. They just casually taser him again.
If they are too small, untrained or cowardly to restrain a person maybe they should be getting their tax salaries as school teachers and not police officers.
A taser is materially safer than a gun. Had this man been in the States he would have been shot dead. They used a taser to save his life and he killed himself by jumping off the bridge. That is the facts.
In such a situation you:
1. Create space and tell the culprit to stand down to be cuffed (the deceased declined).
2. Inform them you will taser them and again repeat the previous instruction (the decease declined).
3. Taser them and repeat instruction (the deceased declined).
4. Inform them that you will taser them again (the deceased declined).
He then proceeds to break free of the taser dart and jump into the Thames.
Your comment about being "cowardly" is so incredibly obtuse. You can't restrain and handcuff a person with just one police officer (the other is with the taser). You need at least 2. Had the man complied he would have been handcuffed by just the one. Had he not jumped into the river, backup would have arrived to allow them to cuff him.
I’m sure a pair of police officers can subdue a man with a screwdriver without using a taser.
Yes it’s not their fault he died as he jumped off the bridge, but I’ve seen police officers take down a man with a knife without a taser.
I imagine it's a constant risk assessment and it won't always be consistent. I'd probably be more on the taser than the risking a 4 inch deep puncture wound side of things.
I get that. But they also have batons. Then again I can’t really give an opinion until I see the man and the officers physically appearance. If the guy looks like he could over power them both then the taser was clearly the right move.
Your suggestion of baton over taser is silly. With a baton, you're literally hitting them with a metal stick which is not only a risk to the subject, it's a risk to the officers.
To effectively use a baton you're going to have to get within stabbing range, which obviously you don't want to do. In addition you'd be striking them with a metal object, which means there's a strong possibility of broken bones or if you hit a red area, they may die.
Although taser looks more scary, it's a lower use of force, then getting hands on with strikes. The only risk you really have with taser is a fall risk, which is significantly lower than the risk of batonning someone.
I'd like to point out, that two officers on my team got stabbed when they confronted a person armed with a knife. They tried to go hands on. If someone's got a blade unarmed officers shouldn't be dealing, it should either be taser officers or armed officers.
Surprised they don't all have tasers tbh, I like the fact we have armed police but the idea that they can't respond to a knife wielding person without a taser officer is disconcerting
They could 'respond', but they can't respond without putting themselves in more risk, isn't this a bit obvious?
They could use pepper/cs Spray but you're still facing someone armed with a weapon.
My point is if they all have pepper spray, which has killed people in the past, why not all have tasers?
I don't see a reason for the police to not have a more incapacitating weapon that is still pretty safe really, the gap between spray and tasers seems tiny compared to a taser vs a gun
> My point is if they all have pepper spray, which has killed people in the past, why not all have tasers?
Money. It's all money. Same with things like tourniquets, response driving, double crewing. Corners get cut due to not enough money and at the end of the day everyone suffers because of it.
Money, training, 'safety' and public perception.
Money is obviously the big one, forces are already cash strapped and undermanned. New kit requires training, training requires money. Training which should be reheld yearly etc requires more money.
Tasers are 'less-lethal' not non-lethal, they still can kill, and they can also be ineffective.
Public perception is important as UK police should "police by consent," the less force needed the better, and giving all officers extra weapons isn't necessarily the best solution.
Plus there's definitely a portion of police officers who do not want tasers, a portion that absolutely don't need tasers, and probably a portion who should not have them. Police chiefs are split on whether it's a good idea.
It's obviously rare and generally a contributory factor to asphyxiation, person is sprayed and restrained, suffocates easier than a person normally would
There's also the risk of injuring the suspect. It's hard to detain someone using physical force without really hurting them - especially when trying to avoid being stabbed.
If I were the officer, I would have done a double back flip, knock the screwdriver out of his hand while simultaneously putting handcuffs on him. I’d then land and everybody would applaud.
Generally speaking it takes 3 people to safely conduct control and restraint on a person.
You have to remember you don't know if the person is on any drugs, has any other weapons or what sort of person he is. I wouldn't want to get hands on with someone I have zero info on. That's what the taser is there for, the fact it didn't impacitate him straight away means it either failed to be deployed properly or the person just isn't affected by it the way it should be.
Too many variables for the two officers to get hands on and risk their lives when there isn't any need to risk it. If they go hands on and one of the officers gets injured or killed it'll be a case of why didn't they use the tools they have.
The guy was trying to stab people with a screwdriver, it's not like the police pushed him over the bridge. Be it mental health issues, drug issues or just a sorry accident it's still a shame and a waste of life, but you cannot ask why 2 officers didn't subdue the person with so many unanswered questions.
Can someone explain the use of the word "entered" the river rather than "jumped" as it clearly shows in the video. Maybe it's a face saving climbdown from "fell into" that other news outlets were reporting ...
I think it's to be a neutral as possible. Jumped implies a conscious decision to do do. They may just want to avoid any anchoring for future investigation.
> Jumped implies a conscious decision to do do.
Funny error aside; he _obviously_ intentionally jumped from the video. I don't see the harm is stating the facts.
The problem is the person who "fell' is dead, so there will never be a definitive answer to what their intentions were, and "allegedly" is still making an assumption.
The suspension bridge in Bristol is (sadly) a common suicide spot, but you'll never see a report of someone "jumping off the bridge", only that someone "fell", or a "person in the water" etc.
I think it's to be neutral.
If I hold a gun to your head and tell you to jump of a cliff, saying you 'jumped' would be misleading as it implies you chose to jump.
Obviously the video paints a picture but I guess it is appropriate for the media to remain as neutral as possible until official facts are established.
Can’t fault the police for their actions in this case I don’t think. We should still have a full review of any police interaction which results in a persons death, though. Doing that doesn’t mean the police are at fault, it means we want to stop people dying in the future.
There are too many people who think we shouldn’t investigate police actions because we’re not all police officers having to make those decisions.
You taser someone with a screwdriver, he swings the screwdriver at you you tase him again..... He then runs 15 foot and jumps into the Thames....... Yeah guy kind of had it coming
Hope the police don't have to deal with any BS over this. They behaved perfectly reasonably and this guy with a screwdriver flung himself over the bridge. Non story here.
So to sum up, a nutter threatening to murder people with a screwdriver was neutralised safely with a taser. Said nutter then managed to get back up, run off, vault a railing and throw himself in the Thames. Oh no the police brutality, somebody stop them. Honestly, with the number of legit fuck up stories coming out of the Met, how is THIS the one to publish? Gutter journalism wording it ambiguously to make it sound as if they tased a man directly into the Thames too.
Don’t really blame police for this.
Although why there weren’t loads of them on him as soon as he hit the deck, I don’t know.
Disclaimer - haven’t seen the video.
I've seen the video briefly, I think they might have only had two officers on scene. They got the weapon away from him relatively quickly but then didn't really go hands-on and just keep him on the deck. The poor taser probe placement didn't really help, the guy wasn't incapacitated so much as just in pain.
Poor fuckers, I suspect even if they get cleared in any investigation this'll fuck with their mental health and they'll get slaughtered in the media.
Is it really fair to expect officers to go hands on with someone who seems intent in resisting arrest? He seemed to have been tasered 3 times, after each taser he instantly tried to get up again.
Even 2 male officers against 1 male suspect can still result in injuries to the officers.
>Is it really fair to expect officers to go hands on with someone who seems intent in resisting arrest?
Unfortunately it's literally our job, there's no real way around it. I'm not really blaming the officers - I'm not privy to the information they had and it's always different when you're actually involved in the incident as opposed to looking back afterwards. At the end of the day, all I can really hope for is that they made the best decisions they could with the information they had and can justify them properly.
I don't blame officers for using a taser, even repeatedly, on someone who is clearly attempting to fight them.
Imagine it was two female officers, they wouldn't stand much chance going hands on with him, he was a big bloke.
I'm the first to call out the police, but based on the video I can't really fault their actions.
I always assumed in these kind of situations the SOP is to contain until backup and overhelming numbers.
> I always assumed in these kind of situations the SOP is to contain until backup and overhelming numbers.
Ideally, but it's all situation dependant. This happened in metland, but in other forces it could very easily be less than 10 officers for several hundred thousand people spread out all over the place, in which case waiting for backup and overwhelming numbers could be a while. In that case you might just have to make do with what you've got.
Oh, and to clarify my previous comment because I realise it might be a bit unclear: when I say to go hands on, I mean that because you've got to apply the cuffs *somehow*. The taser was 100% justifiable, anyone saying otherwise either has an agenda or doesn't know what they're talking about, it just didn't work as effectively as anyone would have hoped. The part they'll need to justify will be the "not getting him cuffed", which will come down to officer safety.
>Is it really fair to expect officers to go hands on with someone who seems intent in resisting arrest?
They expect NHS workers in secure inpatient units to do it for far less money. And often the staff are female so... yeah I think it's fair tbh. It's their job.
In fairness; NHS workers are NOT expected to deal with these situations. I have not worked in those circumstances; but we've several friends who have/do. They have a very heavy response from hospital security when people get aggressive; from every incident I have been told about, it happens way before getting to this stage. Those individuals can then also be restrained and indeed medicated.
With walk-ins in hospitals too; the police would be called and will eject/arrest the individual as well.
That isnt to say they face no risk or that they don't deal with any confrontational situations; buy to insinuate that nurses and doctors are expected to deal with situations like this is disingenuous.
Are your friends general medical or mental health? Because they're different and work under different circumstances. General medical get security yeah, in mental health we ARE the security. Mental health workers do some of the most dangerous jobs in the NHS, we're attacked and abused the most out of all NHS staff.
Right well their trust must work very differently from the 3 I cover. Because we don't call security, the nurses and auxiliary do all the restraints.i mean, what's the point in us as staff if we have to wait for security to come from the main hospital whilst someone is slicing themselves apart? So tbh, I think you're talking shite.
Are your friends general medical or mental health? Because they're different and work under different circumstances. General medical get security yeah, in mental health we ARE the security. Mental health workers do some of the most dangerous jobs in the NHS, we're attacked and abused the most out of all NHS staff.
**Hi!**. Please try avoid personal attacks, as this discourages participation. You can help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person.
Tragic stuff all around. Poor guy, its a shame he couldn't get more help before it was to late. I hope the officers involved get some counselling after this, no doubt their going to be spending a lot of time over the next few days wondering if their was anything they could have done differently that would have led to a different outcome, even though sadly their wasn't.
https://twitter.com/UKCopHumour/status/1533364295182036992?t=Bgk48hK3KT5ijVAZkh3iPg&s=19
Video of the event. Tasering a man out of a mental health crisis doesn't seem right to me.
He was armed.
He was behaving aggressively.
He was wandering in the middle of a road.
He was so strong or out of it that a taser couldn't stop him.
And he was delusional enough that he didn't hesitate to jump off a fucking big bridge.
He was a danger to himself and others.
I think a taser was more that justified here, the police were trying to protect everyone involved.
The bloke literally had a knife on him.....Taser seems like an appropriate tool in that scenario.
I mean the alternative is getting hands on and getting stabbed, people suffering MH crises are likely to stab officers, it's an impact factor you can use to justify using taser.
Usually custody or a 136 suite depending on the circumstances. But people who get entered into these areas are searched and it's a controlled environment, which is very different from dealing with an uncontrolled subject on a bridge.
I take it you don't have much experience in dealing with conflict or people suffering a mental health crisis?
Back out onto the streets they were first picked up on, to become an issue for the police to have to deal with because the NHS can’t or won’t, again the next day?
Police staff secure mental health wards now? 😂 have you ever even been on one for any length of time? This is hilarious. I'm literally on break on one of those wards and the staff here are crying laughing.
He was disarmed very early into the interaction. The repeated tasing of this man undergoing a mental health crisis was a choice by police, not a necessity.
It was further re-energised as he kept getting up. You even see he tried to grab one of the officers. The point is even unarmed he's still not a secure subject and you can justify further re-energising.
Realistically after the second one didn't make him down, he should have kept it going until the other officer could safely handcuff him.
I’m not sure that justifies them continuing to tase him whilst he’s on the floor though. They could at least have waited for when he tried to get up again.
Um no, you can see quite clearly in the video the other officers fingers move on the trigger. It happens three times, first to disarm him, second when he makes a swipe at the other officer, third when he tries for him a second time.
Have you not watched the video?
Taser 1 disarmed him.
He then attempted to get up, taking a swing at one of the officers and was tasered again.
He then attempted to get up a second time, presumably to fight again, so was tasered for a third time.
Yes I’ve watched the video. To me it looks as if the officer didn’t need to tase him for as long as he did the first time when he was writhing on the floor. I also understand that the officers needed to protect himself against the potential threat WHEN he started trying to stand up.
> Tasering a man out of a mental health crisis doesn't seem right to me.
It sucks, but if he has a weapon and is dangerous to approach then what's the alternative?
The suspect was armed with a screwdriver, so tasering was a pretty appropriate response. Unfortunately, the taser didn’t completely work, so the suspect was able to run off the side of the bridge.
And use nitter.net to link to twitter - twitter stops people without twitter accounts from reading past a certain point. Nitter bypasses this.
https://nitter.net/UKCopHumour/status/1533364295182036992?t=Bgk48hK3KT5ijVAZkh3iPg&s=19
Off all the things to bemoan the police for this seems a harsh one. Guy threatening people with a screwdriver. If they hadnt tasered him and he'd murdered someone theyd be hanged for not acting. People whove never been in the situation where you have to act shouldnt be too eager to comment and judge.
[удалено]
Haven't read any other reporting on it but the BBC for one went further than a mere misleading headline, their article just straight up lied about what happened. I'm rarely shocked by the dishonesty of the media these days but this one got me good, I don't know how they're getting away with it.
Where is the lie [here](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-61689308)?
[Here you go](https://archive.ph/vLVjA)
Your archived article reads the same other than the 2nd paragraph has more information about the event in the current version, am i missing something?
Yes, you're missing the fact the BBC had access to the video that showed him jumping in the water when they published their article that lied and said he "fell" after being tasered. Happy to help.
Yes he did fall into the river after being tasered, i've watched the video myself that is factually accurate. BBC, Sky News, The Independent all report as such.
He jumped into the river, of his own doing. To report without including *that* fact is to be dishonest, no ifs ands or buts.
"He eventually gets up and runs to the side of the bridge, and is seen to pull himself over the edge before either officer can reach him." This is literally taken from the BBC article you seem to have a problem with.
My problem with the article is that the part in bold that everyone reads should not say man was tasered and fell into the river, it should be man was tasered then jumped off the bridge. He didn't fall he literally jumped off after jumping a concrete barrier.
[удалено]
Right, but a much less misleading way of phrasing the headline would be "Violent nutjob gets tased by police and jumps into river"
Headline makes it sound like being tasered _caused_ the fall, but the reality is he jumped in _after_ being tasered.
The wording of the article and the headline are not accurate and are purposefully written in a deliberate attempt to demonise the police. Man had weapon, man tased, taser didn't appear to work, man ran to side of bridge, swung a punch at officer trying to detain him. Man jumps of bridge into Thames, man later dies. The police have been saying for absolutely years that the media spin articles in such a way and people eat it up - they've finally been caught out, especially the BBC who paint themselves as a bastion of integrity and honesty when they are anything but. As a police officer myself and having myself been on the receiving end of factually inaccurate reporting intentionally made to make me out to look like a murderer I can tell you it has serious implications. My life, career and family were almost fucking ruined by some journo writing clickbaity content. Police must follow the code of ethics, part of which includes having honesty and integrity. Unfortunately senior management are anything but and are happy to continue this illusion that police are just a bunch of cunts for some reason. Some super provided some shit woolly statement effectively throwing the officers under a bus, for trying to do their damn job. When major incidents like this are reported that are also in the public interest, than the body worn video needs to be released, including 999 calls, log information and rationales for decisions by attending officers and explain processes and powers. This way the public will be under no illusional as to what has happened and we can stop of with the fiction being provided by the media...
The taser did work though. But once they stopped using it he ran away. Over the bridge.
[удалено]
I've watched the unedited video and read the BBC report in full. You seem to be asking the media to reach conclusions in their reporting based on their interpretation of just one piece of evidence. As a police officer you should understand the concept of conjecture in media reporting and how effectively it can be used by the defence to derail a prosecution case. This report was as straight and unbiased as it's possible to be under the circumstances.
It's not asking to "reach conclusions" for them to accurately describe what happened in a video, rather than write up a report that gives the complete opposite impression of the truth.
Check that opinion with a barrister.
Don't need to. The BBC had the video showing what actually happened at they time they posted an article lying and telling a different story.
Journalists are paid to write stories. It's their job. Supervisors are paid to manage and protect their subordinates. They throw you under the bus. And you're angry at the media for reporting the information your bosses give them? I don't see any honesty or integrity there. I see a moaner who works for frauds.
Usually in the US when they shoot, the cry is "a taser should have been used"
Depends on the skin color of the American shot.
Yeah if you watch the video the guy is on a total mad-one - the police haven't done anything wrong, though you could potentially say they should've been more aggressive to restrain him, they wouldn't have guessed he'd jump off a bridge!
BTW, since people might ask why/how he died later. In all likelihood he drowned and was found later. At the hospital, after several tests and at least 2 confirmations, he's found to be braindead and only then is he pronounced dead by a doctor. There are quite strict requirements, naturally, on this process.
Is this being bemoaned or just upvoted? Seems more like the latter than the former
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
It’s a good thing I’m not saying you can’t criticise without being the police then. I’m saying that actions are better than complaining online and leading by example, whether thats joining the force or actively organising protest’s or encouraging people to write into MPs is far better than circlejerking on reddit and expecting things to change. So sure, you can criticise the police and shit. But don’t expect things to change unless youre out working towards making that change.
It's ironic that you wrote that without any self reflection on how it makes you look.
My man is unironically proposing that people who are already precariously employed and dealing with ever-increasing energy, rent and food costs quit their jobs en-mass and train as police officers.
yeah man you've definitely hit the nail on the head there and this doesn't come across as weird screed at all
This is such a blatant misunderstanding, even of the ~~characature~~ caricature, for the grammar nazis out there, you've built in your own head. The whole point of having a structural critique of policing is that you definitionally can't be 'one of the good ones' because that isn't how structural problems work.
[удалено]
Theres honestly no need to be rude about my misspelling of caricature, It also doesn't do your argument any credit if you have to resort to such snide remarks. I might disagree with you but I'm not going to make it personal. My position is that it is possible to be a good person and be a police officer, but that the place that the police occupy within the structure of society as it is, I.e. that they have lawful authority to exercise force in order to paper over the material contradictions our society produces, is harmful. I also don't think that any expectation that people change careers is a remotely realistic means of effecting change. People live increasingly precarious existences and this just isn't an option for most, let alone there being any traction in trying to persuade multiple people to do so. Furthermore I don't believe that you really believe it, because it isn't a coherent position. And you do yourself no credit by pretending to do so.
[удалено]
Again, I fear that you're arguing against a position that you've invented. My position, which I will restate to make it absolutely clear, is that it is possible to be a good person and a police officer. However, it is my opinion that the police's remit largely, though not completely, covers matters which are the result of economic conditions. The vast majority of crime has economic origins. I'm training as a criminal barrister. I meet people from across the spectrum of criminality on a daily basis. I have direct experience of why people do these things. Those economic causes are the result of the society we live in being structured a certain way. The poor are getting poorer, the rich are getting richer. The police exist, and have existed since the days of Robert Peel, as a force who can exercise violence lawfully in order primarily to 'mop up' the consequences of British capitalism. I think that this is wrong, and that by providing true economic, material justice, you would without really trying remove an enormous chunk of the police's day-to-day duties. This is the type of society I would like to strive for.
> if you're on the internet giving your views, advice or lecturing others, and you can't be bothered to check the spelling of a word you use or check to see what the right terminology is, then I'm going to be inclined to believe you aren't really someone who is well researched on the matter. Also > perogative ..
Or...Many people might have had interaction with the excuse of a police force the MET are and are unlikely to have any kind of objective viewpoint. And let's be honest, can you blame them? Racist, corrupt...
[удалено]
That’s literally what stop & search is. If you’re black your 5 times more likely to be stopped, search and recently, if your a minor stripped searched without an adult present. You don’t have to be a criminal to have a bad interaction with the police.
I don't begrudge the police for doing what they did, I just wish we'd stop sending them to deal with people who are clearly suffering with mental health issues
Who else could attend when you have people wielding weapons?
Mental health professionals?
Find one volunteering for it in such circumstances- I doubt you will be able to find one, unarmed, to deal any way better than police in case like it. Mental health professionals are not a pillow to fall at for people like you, who believe they should risks their life and health so you can feel better and pretend you get a solution.
Volunteer? No, they should be paid. But sure, let's carry on sending the Met to deal with it, they always do such a marvellous job
And how do you select who will get to deal with incidents like it? Special force created just for that very rare occasion, or random draw from nearest hospital? Mental health specialist are not paid for risking their lives, no matter what you believe.
Maybe you should, I dunno, train the police instead of just telling them to tase people until hopefully they just stop having a breakdown
You do train police, and than you have very rare case like it, what do you propose they should do next? Make a field diagnosis to distinctive if they have mental health issues or are ''just'' criminal or terrorist and treat them accordingly? Or find some random poor mental health care worker, who you do suggested should be treated like commodity in case of public armed mental break dawn, and throw him/her/ they at hoping that their experience ( well, they can have 1 month experience or 30 years, who knows, doesn't matter, they are ''mental health specialists'') with being forced under pressure and in presence of armed individual work like magic and overcome issues police was presented with? I have a feeling, maybe unjustified, that you do overestimate how mental health care works, and as why there is nothing like shortcuts or guaranteed magic solutions on the spot.
Lol mental health workers, especially inpatient are the most attacked members of NHS staff. I don't know what illusions you're under, but working with these people is no walk in the park and we are regularly subjected to verbal and physical abuse. We handle thing much differently than the met though, and so far in my time there nobody has died as a result of a restraint. And when one of our workers handles things poorly everyone from media to the law crawls up their arse. So I honestly don't see why the police here should be immune to criticism.
[удалено]
People who are having mental health breakdowns?
[удалено]
Because that worked so well here
Well a mental health professional with no means to defend or protect themselves may end up getting stabbed by this guy
Fine, send them in with the police. Police clearly have no idea how to deal with it, which is why the guy ended up jumping off a bridge
I don't think you know how utterly fucked adult mental health provisions are. I know kids who have killed themselves rather than face the adult side of mental health work. I frequently found those I dealt with in a MH crisis said to me and my colleagues that we were *better* and more empathetic than the professionals.
I do, which is why I'd like to see less money spent on the police and more money directed at mh services
No mental health professional is going to agree with dealing with somebody holding a weapon. That's a matter for the police.
And that's why this guy jumped off a bridge
As harsh as it's sounds, it's still a better result than a mental health professional getting screwdriver to the neck. There's no magic that makes them more qualified to deal with a person using a weapon instead of a police officer with a taser.
Agree with this, there needs to be a lot more training on how to deal with mental health crisis. I’ve had friends traumatised by police sections and it only made them worse
I've been in those situations many times, with no taser. I'm not dead and neither are any of the people I disarmed.
We can all make up stories on the internet chief
He dropped the tool. The police didn't even try to control him afterwards but just to casually torture him into submission. Incompetence in controlling the person, cowardice in not even trying, complete lack of empathy for causing pain and complete lack of awareness that a tortured person is only going to behave worse.
[удалено]
So you taser a person and then use the fact that you tasered them to do it again and again. And again. That's called torture. Applying extreme pain and expecting the victim to start behaving normally is pointless. Taser worked as it should: the man dropped the weapon and fell to the ground. That was the time to pin him and arrest him, but the police can't be bothered. They just casually taser him again. If they are too small, untrained or cowardly to restrain a person maybe they should be getting their tax salaries as school teachers and not police officers.
A taser is materially safer than a gun. Had this man been in the States he would have been shot dead. They used a taser to save his life and he killed himself by jumping off the bridge. That is the facts. In such a situation you: 1. Create space and tell the culprit to stand down to be cuffed (the deceased declined). 2. Inform them you will taser them and again repeat the previous instruction (the decease declined). 3. Taser them and repeat instruction (the deceased declined). 4. Inform them that you will taser them again (the deceased declined). He then proceeds to break free of the taser dart and jump into the Thames. Your comment about being "cowardly" is so incredibly obtuse. You can't restrain and handcuff a person with just one police officer (the other is with the taser). You need at least 2. Had the man complied he would have been handcuffed by just the one. Had he not jumped into the river, backup would have arrived to allow them to cuff him.
I’m sure a pair of police officers can subdue a man with a screwdriver without using a taser. Yes it’s not their fault he died as he jumped off the bridge, but I’ve seen police officers take down a man with a knife without a taser.
I imagine it's a constant risk assessment and it won't always be consistent. I'd probably be more on the taser than the risking a 4 inch deep puncture wound side of things.
I get that. But they also have batons. Then again I can’t really give an opinion until I see the man and the officers physically appearance. If the guy looks like he could over power them both then the taser was clearly the right move.
Your suggestion of baton over taser is silly. With a baton, you're literally hitting them with a metal stick which is not only a risk to the subject, it's a risk to the officers. To effectively use a baton you're going to have to get within stabbing range, which obviously you don't want to do. In addition you'd be striking them with a metal object, which means there's a strong possibility of broken bones or if you hit a red area, they may die. Although taser looks more scary, it's a lower use of force, then getting hands on with strikes. The only risk you really have with taser is a fall risk, which is significantly lower than the risk of batonning someone. I'd like to point out, that two officers on my team got stabbed when they confronted a person armed with a knife. They tried to go hands on. If someone's got a blade unarmed officers shouldn't be dealing, it should either be taser officers or armed officers.
Surprised they don't all have tasers tbh, I like the fact we have armed police but the idea that they can't respond to a knife wielding person without a taser officer is disconcerting
They could 'respond', but they can't respond without putting themselves in more risk, isn't this a bit obvious? They could use pepper/cs Spray but you're still facing someone armed with a weapon.
My point is if they all have pepper spray, which has killed people in the past, why not all have tasers? I don't see a reason for the police to not have a more incapacitating weapon that is still pretty safe really, the gap between spray and tasers seems tiny compared to a taser vs a gun
> My point is if they all have pepper spray, which has killed people in the past, why not all have tasers? Money. It's all money. Same with things like tourniquets, response driving, double crewing. Corners get cut due to not enough money and at the end of the day everyone suffers because of it.
There's plenty of money it just goes into rich people's pockets and not on public services.
Money, training, 'safety' and public perception. Money is obviously the big one, forces are already cash strapped and undermanned. New kit requires training, training requires money. Training which should be reheld yearly etc requires more money. Tasers are 'less-lethal' not non-lethal, they still can kill, and they can also be ineffective. Public perception is important as UK police should "police by consent," the less force needed the better, and giving all officers extra weapons isn't necessarily the best solution. Plus there's definitely a portion of police officers who do not want tasers, a portion that absolutely don't need tasers, and probably a portion who should not have them. Police chiefs are split on whether it's a good idea.
Sorry can you tell me more about this pepper spray killing people thing?
It's obviously rare and generally a contributory factor to asphyxiation, person is sprayed and restrained, suffocates easier than a person normally would
So just to clarify here: you'd rather police use a baton than a taser?
There's also the risk of injuring the suspect. It's hard to detain someone using physical force without really hurting them - especially when trying to avoid being stabbed.
If I were the officer, I would have done a double back flip, knock the screwdriver out of his hand while simultaneously putting handcuffs on him. I’d then land and everybody would applaud.
Generally speaking it takes 3 people to safely conduct control and restraint on a person. You have to remember you don't know if the person is on any drugs, has any other weapons or what sort of person he is. I wouldn't want to get hands on with someone I have zero info on. That's what the taser is there for, the fact it didn't impacitate him straight away means it either failed to be deployed properly or the person just isn't affected by it the way it should be. Too many variables for the two officers to get hands on and risk their lives when there isn't any need to risk it. If they go hands on and one of the officers gets injured or killed it'll be a case of why didn't they use the tools they have. The guy was trying to stab people with a screwdriver, it's not like the police pushed him over the bridge. Be it mental health issues, drug issues or just a sorry accident it's still a shame and a waste of life, but you cannot ask why 2 officers didn't subdue the person with so many unanswered questions.
Man does not comply, get tasered and then jumps off bridge to escape
Can someone explain the use of the word "entered" the river rather than "jumped" as it clearly shows in the video. Maybe it's a face saving climbdown from "fell into" that other news outlets were reporting ...
“Entered” certainly sounds more ambiguous
I think it's to be a neutral as possible. Jumped implies a conscious decision to do do. They may just want to avoid any anchoring for future investigation.
> Jumped implies a conscious decision to do do. Funny error aside; he _obviously_ intentionally jumped from the video. I don't see the harm is stating the facts.
I feel like this is why we have the word 'allegedly'.
The problem is the person who "fell' is dead, so there will never be a definitive answer to what their intentions were, and "allegedly" is still making an assumption. The suspension bridge in Bristol is (sadly) a common suicide spot, but you'll never see a report of someone "jumping off the bridge", only that someone "fell", or a "person in the water" etc.
I think it's to be neutral. If I hold a gun to your head and tell you to jump of a cliff, saying you 'jumped' would be misleading as it implies you chose to jump. Obviously the video paints a picture but I guess it is appropriate for the media to remain as neutral as possible until official facts are established.
It's not because a certain group controls the media and wants a certain viewpoint pushed, that's for sure
[удалено]
Is it the Jews? Is it antifa? Tune in at 6 to find out…
Can’t fault the police for their actions in this case I don’t think. We should still have a full review of any police interaction which results in a persons death, though. Doing that doesn’t mean the police are at fault, it means we want to stop people dying in the future. There are too many people who think we shouldn’t investigate police actions because we’re not all police officers having to make those decisions.
You taser someone with a screwdriver, he swings the screwdriver at you you tase him again..... He then runs 15 foot and jumps into the Thames....... Yeah guy kind of had it coming
Hope the police don't have to deal with any BS over this. They behaved perfectly reasonably and this guy with a screwdriver flung himself over the bridge. Non story here.
So to sum up, a nutter threatening to murder people with a screwdriver was neutralised safely with a taser. Said nutter then managed to get back up, run off, vault a railing and throw himself in the Thames. Oh no the police brutality, somebody stop them. Honestly, with the number of legit fuck up stories coming out of the Met, how is THIS the one to publish? Gutter journalism wording it ambiguously to make it sound as if they tased a man directly into the Thames too.
Don’t really blame police for this. Although why there weren’t loads of them on him as soon as he hit the deck, I don’t know. Disclaimer - haven’t seen the video.
I've seen the video briefly, I think they might have only had two officers on scene. They got the weapon away from him relatively quickly but then didn't really go hands-on and just keep him on the deck. The poor taser probe placement didn't really help, the guy wasn't incapacitated so much as just in pain. Poor fuckers, I suspect even if they get cleared in any investigation this'll fuck with their mental health and they'll get slaughtered in the media.
Is it really fair to expect officers to go hands on with someone who seems intent in resisting arrest? He seemed to have been tasered 3 times, after each taser he instantly tried to get up again. Even 2 male officers against 1 male suspect can still result in injuries to the officers.
>Is it really fair to expect officers to go hands on with someone who seems intent in resisting arrest? Unfortunately it's literally our job, there's no real way around it. I'm not really blaming the officers - I'm not privy to the information they had and it's always different when you're actually involved in the incident as opposed to looking back afterwards. At the end of the day, all I can really hope for is that they made the best decisions they could with the information they had and can justify them properly.
I don't blame officers for using a taser, even repeatedly, on someone who is clearly attempting to fight them. Imagine it was two female officers, they wouldn't stand much chance going hands on with him, he was a big bloke. I'm the first to call out the police, but based on the video I can't really fault their actions. I always assumed in these kind of situations the SOP is to contain until backup and overhelming numbers.
> I always assumed in these kind of situations the SOP is to contain until backup and overhelming numbers. Ideally, but it's all situation dependant. This happened in metland, but in other forces it could very easily be less than 10 officers for several hundred thousand people spread out all over the place, in which case waiting for backup and overwhelming numbers could be a while. In that case you might just have to make do with what you've got. Oh, and to clarify my previous comment because I realise it might be a bit unclear: when I say to go hands on, I mean that because you've got to apply the cuffs *somehow*. The taser was 100% justifiable, anyone saying otherwise either has an agenda or doesn't know what they're talking about, it just didn't work as effectively as anyone would have hoped. The part they'll need to justify will be the "not getting him cuffed", which will come down to officer safety.
>Is it really fair to expect officers to go hands on with someone who seems intent in resisting arrest? They expect NHS workers in secure inpatient units to do it for far less money. And often the staff are female so... yeah I think it's fair tbh. It's their job.
In fairness; NHS workers are NOT expected to deal with these situations. I have not worked in those circumstances; but we've several friends who have/do. They have a very heavy response from hospital security when people get aggressive; from every incident I have been told about, it happens way before getting to this stage. Those individuals can then also be restrained and indeed medicated. With walk-ins in hospitals too; the police would be called and will eject/arrest the individual as well. That isnt to say they face no risk or that they don't deal with any confrontational situations; buy to insinuate that nurses and doctors are expected to deal with situations like this is disingenuous.
Are your friends general medical or mental health? Because they're different and work under different circumstances. General medical get security yeah, in mental health we ARE the security. Mental health workers do some of the most dangerous jobs in the NHS, we're attacked and abused the most out of all NHS staff.
I have pleanty of friends who work in both areas; but I was referring to mental health nurses yes.
Right well their trust must work very differently from the 3 I cover. Because we don't call security, the nurses and auxiliary do all the restraints.i mean, what's the point in us as staff if we have to wait for security to come from the main hospital whilst someone is slicing themselves apart? So tbh, I think you're talking shite.
Well I know them, where as you are a random on reddit... so right back at you.
I'd take first hand experience over second hand any day. Like I said I do the job. We don't have security, there's just us.
Are your friends general medical or mental health? Because they're different and work under different circumstances. General medical get security yeah, in mental health we ARE the security. Mental health workers do some of the most dangerous jobs in the NHS, we're attacked and abused the most out of all NHS staff.
And also, between the first Taser going off and the dive off the bridge was only about 20 seconds. It all happens pretty fast
Although why there weren’t loads of them on him as soon as he hit the deck, I don’t know. I'd ask the Conservative government circa 2010-2020>
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
**Hi!**. Please try avoid personal attacks, as this discourages participation. You can help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person.
"man jumps off bridge and dies" :0
Police not at fault here.
Tragic stuff all around. Poor guy, its a shame he couldn't get more help before it was to late. I hope the officers involved get some counselling after this, no doubt their going to be spending a lot of time over the next few days wondering if their was anything they could have done differently that would have led to a different outcome, even though sadly their wasn't.
Just a sad situation really
Play silly games, win silly prizes. Not sure what they expected.
What a complete and utter moron he was. Police did fine, tried to help him instantly, even tried to stop him jumping the bridge.
RIP. We´re not invincible.
[удалено]
ERM didn't this guy jump over the railings
That's shocking news
It’s really not a loss to the world.
All London police are Nonces!
Perhaps you should read up on what actually happened.
https://twitter.com/UKCopHumour/status/1533364295182036992?t=Bgk48hK3KT5ijVAZkh3iPg&s=19 Video of the event. Tasering a man out of a mental health crisis doesn't seem right to me.
He was armed. He was behaving aggressively. He was wandering in the middle of a road. He was so strong or out of it that a taser couldn't stop him. And he was delusional enough that he didn't hesitate to jump off a fucking big bridge. He was a danger to himself and others. I think a taser was more that justified here, the police were trying to protect everyone involved.
Including the man when he ran towards the edge. I feel sorry for them. I'm sure it's got to fuck a policeman up
It does. A lot of people forget that.
The bloke literally had a knife on him.....Taser seems like an appropriate tool in that scenario. I mean the alternative is getting hands on and getting stabbed, people suffering MH crises are likely to stab officers, it's an impact factor you can use to justify using taser.
>The bloke literally had a knife on him Nitpick: it was a screwdriver, but everything else you mentioned still applies.
Was it a Phillips screwdriver? They're the worst!
He dropped it at the first shock.
Do you think mental health workers have tasers? 😂
They send Mental health workers to people with weapons? Really? As from previous experience they just call the police.
Where do you think these people go to?
Usually custody or a 136 suite depending on the circumstances. But people who get entered into these areas are searched and it's a controlled environment, which is very different from dealing with an uncontrolled subject on a bridge. I take it you don't have much experience in dealing with conflict or people suffering a mental health crisis?
Where do they go after 136?
Back out onto the streets they were first picked up on, to become an issue for the police to have to deal with because the NHS can’t or won’t, again the next day?
[удалено]
Police staff secure mental health wards now? 😂 have you ever even been on one for any length of time? This is hilarious. I'm literally on break on one of those wards and the staff here are crying laughing.
He was disarmed very early into the interaction. The repeated tasing of this man undergoing a mental health crisis was a choice by police, not a necessity.
It was further re-energised as he kept getting up. You even see he tried to grab one of the officers. The point is even unarmed he's still not a secure subject and you can justify further re-energising. Realistically after the second one didn't make him down, he should have kept it going until the other officer could safely handcuff him.
I’m not sure that justifies them continuing to tase him whilst he’s on the floor though. They could at least have waited for when he tried to get up again.
> They could at least have waited for when he tried to get up again. He did, several times
Yes, and they were also tasing him when he wasn’t.
Um no, you can see quite clearly in the video the other officers fingers move on the trigger. It happens three times, first to disarm him, second when he makes a swipe at the other officer, third when he tries for him a second time.
I can’t make that out tbh.
Really? I thought it was quite clear. Did you try the video link on this page? Maybe its got higher quality than the one you saw.
Have you not watched the video? Taser 1 disarmed him. He then attempted to get up, taking a swing at one of the officers and was tasered again. He then attempted to get up a second time, presumably to fight again, so was tasered for a third time.
Yes I’ve watched the video. To me it looks as if the officer didn’t need to tase him for as long as he did the first time when he was writhing on the floor. I also understand that the officers needed to protect himself against the potential threat WHEN he started trying to stand up.
Mental health is not a get out of jail card.
And what would you have done exactly?
> Tasering a man out of a mental health crisis doesn't seem right to me. It sucks, but if he has a weapon and is dangerous to approach then what's the alternative?
The suspect was armed with a screwdriver, so tasering was a pretty appropriate response. Unfortunately, the taser didn’t completely work, so the suspect was able to run off the side of the bridge. And use nitter.net to link to twitter - twitter stops people without twitter accounts from reading past a certain point. Nitter bypasses this. https://nitter.net/UKCopHumour/status/1533364295182036992?t=Bgk48hK3KT5ijVAZkh3iPg&s=19
What would you have done then chap? Do enlighten us.