Taser 2 (From Flickr, crative comms Trojan631)Police forces must avoid ‘mission creep’ over their deployment of Tasers following a 200% increase in use over the last four years, warned the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) in a report published today. The watchdog considered all complaints made regarding the weapon between 2004 and 2013.

IPCC commissioner Cindy Butts called for each use of a Taser to be ‘robustly justified’ so as to to avoid ‘mission-creep’ and using Tasers simply because they were available rather than necessary.

Over the last four years the use of Taser grown from 3,128 in 2009 to 10,380 in 2013 which was an increase of 232% – complaints had shot up by 211% over the same period (from 44 to 137 complaints). Since 2004, 434 complaints had been made to the IPCC and over three-quarters (78%) were subject to investigation.As of 2009, police forces have been required to refer all complaints regarding Taser use to the IPCC.

  • You can watch Shocking Britain’ a documentary made by Matt Spencer for www.thejusticegap.com
  • You can download the report here (PDF)

From 2004, all firearms officers were able to use Tasers; in 2007, officers were given the right to use Tasers in incidents where use of firearms was not authorised; the following year, ‘specially trained units’ in 10 police forces were allowed to use Tasers; and in 2010 additional finance was provided by the Home Secretary to purchase the weapon.

The IPCC expressed concerns about what is known as ‘drive-stun mode’, a form of ‘pain compliance’ used in situations where officers struggle to restrain a person. In a number of its investigations, the person was not restrained which led to repeated use of Taser. The watchdog questioned how a situation escalated to one in which the Taser became the only viable option.

‘The IPCC has major concerns about the use of Tasers in drive-stun mode, where the Taser is applied directly to the body without a cartridge rather than fired from a distance. When used in this way it was ‘purely a means of pain compliance’, he said. ‘Yet in several of the cases we reviewed, where it was used for the purpose of gaining compliance, it had the opposite effect, stimulating further resistance.’
IPCC commissioner James Dipple-Johnstone

Also of concern was the use of Taser in custody. The IPPC questioned whether such use was ever justified given the controlled environment.

In the words of the IPCC, there was a ‘mismatch’ between the police and public perception of Taser use. Police officers commonly reasoned they used Taser as it was one of the lowest forms of force available to them and it was deployed to avoid more serious injury. The ability to use Taser without any contact was central to their reasoning. Where as the public  regarded Taser use in itself was a high level use of force.

IPCC made the following recommendations:

  • stronger and clearer guidance on the use of Taser in custody, where the IPCC believes it should only be used in the most exceptional circumstances
  • wider safety training for non-Taser equipped officers working with Taser-trained officers
  • robust monitoring of Taser use by local forces to ensure it is not being used too readily or too often by particular officers or teams
  • ensuring the selection process for Taser-trained officers and subsequent supervision is robust

 

Profile photo of Caislin Boyle About Caislin Boyle
Caislin has completed the BPTC at the University of Law London and is currently seeking pupillage

Print Friendly

3 Comments

  • George Gretton July 26, 2014 12:03 pm

    Hello again Caislin,

    “Slippage” seems to be something on an understatement here.

    The WHOLE CENTRAL BENEFIT of Taser use is that it spares Police Officers the need to get up close and personal with a suspect or very problematic person, thus reducing the risk of injury to Officers, which is, when the circumstances are right, spot on. While Police Officers take risks (as do I….) in their work, it’s good NOT to have them off recovering from an assault.

    But used at Zero Range?

    “You cannot be serious!”

    In my view any officer abusing a Taser by NOT using it at a distance, so as to pre-emptively protect him or herself and others, has TOTALLY lost the plot, and needs to be subjected to IMMEDIATE disciplinary proceedings, perhaps automatically including suspension.

    Yours, very disturbed at these abuses both of Tazers and of human-beings,

    George

  • janet butler February 16, 2015 7:06 pm

    my son lloyd edward butler who died in police custody on the 4th of august 2010,
    the west midlands police have since publicly announced that they failed lloyd in their duty of care the day he died?

    however a short time before he died, the police attended lloyds place of residence, where he recieved 4 seperate discharges of taser?

    i complained to the police, however the said that the correct action was taken?
    how can this be appropriate action, when lloyd was on the floor, after the first blast of taser, the second blast, then the third blast, and finally the 4th blast, and by the way,you could not fit another police officer in his flat, down the stairs ect and outside, and they say that this action was appropriate, this is not just, this is just not right.

    • George Gretton February 23, 2015 10:59 pm

      Hello Janet,

      I’m so sorry to hear of your awful loss. The very thought of losing a son, your child, just appals and distresses me. I have two sons in their 30s.

      I’ve heard talk from Senior and Junior Police Officers about “appropriate responses” and about “proportionality”, and I have been sickened. It has been smug bollocks.

      What happened to your son was not just not right; it was murder.

      The Tazers were being repeatedly used Offensively, and not Defensively.

      We have a MASSIVE problem here. Police Officers are supposed to Defend, rather than kill.

      I have separately heard from a friend, that is a retired Police Officer, that when word goes around of a “Car Chase”, then many just join in, and innocent civilians get killed as “collateral damage”.

Add Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Skip to toolbar