Use of police stun guns on the increase (From Gazette & Herald)
Get in touch: send your photos, videos, news & views by texting YOGAZ to 80360 or send an email»
Use of police stun guns on the increase in York and North Yorkshire
8:30am Friday 21st September 2012 in News
By Jennifer Bell, Crime reporter
POLICE in York and North Yorkshire are using high-voltage stun guns to shoot or warn more people than ever before, new figures have revealed.
Tasers fire two darts, delivering a 50,000-volt electric charge through the target, paralysing him or her for five seconds.
Figures, revealed in a Freedom of Information request, showed they were used by North Yorkshire officers 94 times in 2011/12.
That is more than three times than in 2009/10.
While there are no figures available for 2010/11, in 2009/10 tasers were used 28 times and 43 times in 2008/09.
A force spokesman said: “The use of a taser is one of a number of tactical options available to an officer who is faced with violence or the threat of violence.
“Its purpose is to temporarily incapacitate an individual in order to control and neutralise the threat that they pose.
“Police hope any violent incident will be resolved through communication, and on many occasions this is the case. But in some instances, officers need to take further action to prevent harm to the public, police officers and in some cases, the offender.” Tasers look like a fluorescent pistol and use compressed air to fire two darts that trail an electric cable back to the handset.
When the darts strike, the charge is released down the cable, which causes the suspect’s muscles to contract uncontrollably. Earlier this year The Press revealed how a fugitive wanted in Poland on charges of robbery and theft was tasered and arrested by police in York city centre. Tomasz Furmaniak, 30, was arrested in Swinegate by a team of officers from North Yorkshire Police, after he was spotted drinking in a bar.
Police have also revealed figures on other weapons used by officers in violent situations.
In 2011/12, officers used batons 41 times compared with 59 in 2009/10 and 46 in 2008/09, a firearms six times compared with 13 in 2009/10 and 20in 2008/09 and incapacitating spray 147 times, compared with 218 in 2009/10 and 225 in 2008/09.
Comments(7)
Zetkin
says...
9:54am Fri 21 Sep 12
Tasering has killed hundreds of people, and by no means all of them can be counted as "scum" even by Pete's definition.
But even if they were, what gives the police the right to be judge, jury, and excecutioner?
The police are no more perfect than the rest of us, yet we seem happy to hand them the power of life and death, despite overwhelming evidence that they misuse that power day in, day out.
Pete the Brickie
says...
10:11am Fri 21 Sep 12
Zetkin wrote:I'd define "misuse" as use on an elderly man with dementia, a fifteen year old who'd given his mother some lip or someone who is already handcuffed, all these things have happened but not in North Yorkshire.
Depends how you define "misuse" I suppose.
Tasering has killed hundreds of people, and by no means all of them can be counted as "scum" even by Pete's definition.
But even if they were, what gives the police the right to be judge, jury, and excecutioner?
The police are no more perfect than the rest of us, yet we seem happy to hand them the power of life and death, despite overwhelming evidence that they misuse that power day in, day out.
The person I defined as scum is the one who shot two women who had no chance or means to defend temselves for no reason what so ever, then handed themselves in to avoid facing a deserved lethal response.
I'm not happy to hand them the power of life and death, but they need the upper hand against knives and let's face it if they've got tazers they're less likely to resort to guns, the statistics seem to show this although I'd still rather those guns were pointed at criminals rather than law abiding firearms certificate holders which is who our particular force seems to concentrate on bringing them to bear on in my opinion and experience.
RooBeck
says...
10:28am Fri 21 Sep 12
ExPatBob
says...
2:50pm Fri 21 Sep 12
Pete the Brickie
says...
3:36pm Fri 21 Sep 12
ExPatBob says...
2:50pm Fri 21 Sep 12
Well said Pete... But I can imagine if they were pointing guns at registered holders of firearms. They had good reason to do so. A licence to hold a firearm is not a licence to do what you want. We have to remember these officers do a job that is hard and sometimes involves doing things, we as the public do not like. I am sure if you asked some of the officers in private, they may not actually like their job. But it is a job they do. One they are doing whilst having their conditions and pay cut.”
Thanks Bob, they may not enjoy what they do privately, but I for one can assure you they certainly seemed to enjoy in publicly humiliatiing someone who was not armed, could not possibly be armed, has an unblemished record with firearms, taught firearms safety, had committed no crime and not harmed or threatened to harm anyone with or without a firearm in my case. They never say sorry either when they are mistaken, badly informed or just plain wrong.
I do however totally support them in tackling nutters like the one eyed scum from Manchester, I just wish they'd got there by some twist of fate ahead of the two unarmed women and saved us the expense of a trial.
peterstreet
says...
4:36pm Fri 21 Sep 12
Pete the Brickie wrote:Wow! I think it is high time the whole world heard this story Pete, I suppose however that you dont want to give any clue to your identity, I bet the officers concerned recognise themselves though, take care! also one can be critical of some actions of some police officers without being anti police! as for Cregan I hope he rots in life and then burns in hell. As for the two young women P.Cs may God Bless them both and their poor families, RIP
ExPatBob says...
2:50pm Fri 21 Sep 12
Well said Pete... But I can imagine if they were pointing guns at registered holders of firearms. They had good reason to do so. A licence to hold a firearm is not a licence to do what you want. We have to remember these officers do a job that is hard and sometimes involves doing things, we as the public do not like. I am sure if you asked some of the officers in private, they may not actually like their job. But it is a job they do. One they are doing whilst having their conditions and pay cut.”
Thanks Bob, they may not enjoy what they do privately, but I for one can assure you they certainly seemed to enjoy in publicly humiliatiing someone who was not armed, could not possibly be armed, has an unblemished record with firearms, taught firearms safety, had committed no crime and not harmed or threatened to harm anyone with or without a firearm in my case. They never say sorry either when they are mistaken, badly informed or just plain wrong.
I do however totally support them in tackling nutters like the one eyed scum from Manchester, I just wish they'd got there by some twist of fate ahead of the two unarmed women and saved us the expense of a trial.
Pete the Brickie says...
9:38am Fri 21 Sep 12