Police taser innocent blind man

Benefit of the doubt even when they may have a weapon that could kill you faster than you could react? I'm not saying it's necessarily justified here but you can't make sweeping statements like that and expect them to fly.

Was the officer also blind :rolleyes:

Moron thug can't tell the difference between an old blind guy and a nutter with a sword, **** me I could without glasses and I'm blind without them
 
I can't remember if this is in the highway code, but I recall that white canes = partially sighted / blind, and red/white (striped) = deaf-blind. The canes are only about 1cm diameter at its widest and have no hilts so they shouldn't have been mistaken for a sword. Fencing sword maybe, but they have hilts as well.
 
Do our tazers have a video camera that records when they are held/fired like the americans ones do (or are ment to til lthe officers turn them off)?

if not why not?
 
Whilst this shouldn't reflect badly on the police as a whole, they should 100% fire this idiot.

It's when they don't fire the idiots but instead protect them that we start to lose faith in the force as a whole. Guy should be out on his arse looking for a new job.
 
The guy didn't stop walking when they told him to stop. If their view of his cane was blocked, it could look like he was trying to move away whilst concealing it.

Not all visually impaired people wave their cane around in the manner most people would assume, some who are less impaired will only use it to judge the height of a step / pavement. If he's carrying it down by his side then it could be mistaken for something else.

It's unfortunate, but we all know what has happened in the past when a person refuses to stop for an armed officer.

he was shambling along feeling the edge of the path.

they could have walked around him. also interestingly from his account they did not identify themselves as polcie officers.
 
Police can kill without reprimand so a small tasering of the disabled won't cause too many ripples.

A sad, but true state of affairs.

Harry Stanley is as good a case as any, but Ian Tomlinson or Charles de Menezes serve just as well to demonstrate the principle in more recent times.

Police officers will always protect their own, and are highly skilled at doing so. Understandable to some degree, but worrying for the rest of us.
 
Benefit of the doubt even when they may have a weapon that could kill you faster than you could react? I'm not saying it's necessarily justified here but you can't make sweeping statements like that and expect them to fly.

How can someone with a sword kill you before you can react when you are pointing a firearm at them from a distance? Teleportation?
 
The OP says he was blind, not having seen the same video as you means we are not all privy to the same information.

Yeah, the article originally posted didn't contain the video interview with the chap, looks like it's been updated.
 
It kind of sums up the western world at the moment with everybody living in fear and thinking the worst in every given situation, the constant negative media coverage certainly doesn't help.

No doubt the governments response to this will be to make the blind peoples' sticks pink so our highly trained police can tell the difference.
 
Why is the fact he suffered strokes relevent it isn't.

-excuse me can I see your medical record pleas, I want to know if I can taser you, in the publics opinion if you've had a stroke then its deemed wrong.

Also this is a rubbish line that I couldn't disagree with more.

“It’s a sad excuse. They wouldn’t even stop when I said I’m blind.
So what if you are blind, what does that change, why would they not arrest and handcuff you. What an absurd statement.


However back to the more important bit. Seems like tazer was used for no reason and without warning.
 
I know the police have a hard enough job, but in no way is this incident justified, and the individual concerned should be out of a job ASAP.
Stories like this do the police no favours at all.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom