Here is a Scenario Where Police Would Have Been Better Off Just Shooting Man

Its a video from 2013 in France. Some guy approaches cops injured, claiming innocence. He taunts them and refuses to comply with orders. He then becomes the human torch when they taser and tear gas him simultaneously. I am sure he enjoyed being on fire. Perhaps a bullet would have been a better choice? Ok well, yea I guess they could have just beaten him with the baton as well.


Whoops!

a reply to: worldstarcountry

They electrocuted, gassed and set him on fire. What is this, Nazi Germany?

a reply to: worldstarcountry

Damn....


Someone is getting sued.....

Hindsight this seems kinda obvious.

areosol and a spark = fire lol..

I’m really suprised this hasn’t happened enough to have it been known you can’t do both simotaneously..

Be interesting to see if normal police training warns cops not to..



PS.. I doubt seriously he wishes they had shot him.. when cops shoot they do t shoot once and stop..

They turn you into Swiss cheese and don’t have to worry about a witness telling their side of the story.

What did he do , douse himself with gasoline first ?
More to the story than the video shows...

a reply to: intrptr



And it all happened in a "Non Smoking/Ne pas fumer" area...

originally posted by: Gothmog
What did he do , douse himself with gasoline first ?
More to the story than the video shows...

The aerosol of tear gas was flammable, the sparks on the Taser nodes set it off. It burns off quick enough, but not too quick.

Like authorities haven't been trained about that possibility.

a reply to: worldstarcountry

That length of a burn is not going to cause much damage to the individual, so, no, a bullet would not have been better.

What would have been better is if Captain Sags-a-lot would have calmed down and acted like a civilized human being when interacting with the officers.

So, do we have the whole story as to what happened, or are we just supposed to go off of a video that's in a country where the vast majority of us don't understand the law, LEO policy, or the language?

a reply to: worldstarcountry

I do not feel bad for the guy. He had entirely too many chances to back off and wouldn't. This is one of those times I'd say that he had it coming, hopefully next time he'll listen. They should have known better than to use both items at once, but I just can't feel bad for him when he caused them to react.

a reply to: SlapMonkey
yea I was up for too long and my heavy eyes did not permit me to elaborate. I probably should have said, the presence of a firearm pointed at uncooperative belligerent would have been more successful. Most people, but obviously not all tend to become more cooperative with a firearm is introduced into the equation.

This incident was however completely accidental, as they initially were being courteous and the guy just became an ass. Thats the problem with European police, a lack of force projection on every unit (ie, the gun) leads to a culture that does not respect law enforcement and routinely refuses to be cooperative, even worse confrontational.

To be fair, the police were like "wtf, who sprayed this guy with gas afterwards. The guy had an injury, looks like he may have been stabbed from a previous altercation. They insisted they were going to assist him but he needed to just calm down, which he refused to do. They took him to the ground to help put out the fire. The incident arose due to a lack of coordination between the officers with them spontaneously deploying different non-lethal measures to subdue the belligerent at their own digression.

I would bet money though, that if he had a gun pointed at him, he would have just sit down and relaxed. European states need to arm their police with firearms. It is disrespectful to put them in harms way policing society without a way to defend themselves on site from a lethal threat, which can come at any moment from the least likely incident. Not to mention it breeds a society that is conditioned to believe it is their right to immediately challenge LEO's for no reason at all other than to earn cool points.

Self inflicted whatever the result. Cooperate get help, or play bad guy and whatever happens is deserved.

I have no sympathy for that guy.

Just to add a bit on info

At 1:43 the man tell the office that he's gona poor his blood on him while showing his blooded arm. Then at 1:54 he says to the officer he could knock him down with one shot showing his fist. Nice Guy.

a reply to: worldstarcountry

Yeah, I concur with nearly everything that you said.



ETA: Case in point, I was just discussing the topic of armed (firearms) police in the US versus non-firearm armed ("sticks") police in the UK, and the person (from the UK) with whom I was discussing the issue was applauding the fact that it's easy to run away from police over there because there's no fear of very much of a physically harmful response from their LEOs. Of course, he also assumed that we're all afraid of being shot in the back by police here in the US, so meh. At least the discussion was cordial, so there's that.

The suspect apparently was injured in an earlier incident. He reportedly suffered little additional injury from the police.

www.thelocal.fr...

a reply to: SlapMonkey
his argument falls flat though on everyone being afraid of being shot in the back. If that were the case, there would not be so many people arrested for fleeing or resisting without violence that have never had a round discharged towards them. Too much Hollywood MSM news probably.

It may happen, but it is simply just not a regular occurrence whatsoever, and of course we all know that.

I hate seeing police abuse, this is not one of those times, dude asked to be tased and he got his wish, the gas obviously should not of been used. In the end he is alive, this could of gone any # of ways in the U.S.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: worldstarcountry

Damn....


Someone is getting sued.....

Naw, its France

a reply to: worldstarcountry


They likely used a taser in conjunction with a chemical irritant that wasn't ESD safe. It used alcohol or some other flammable carrier for the irritant agent. It is also possible the individual had already been doused in a flammable liquid (or possibly had some on their clothing already, but it takes more than a casual exposure)

In any case, this is a perfect example where complying would have resulted in none of this occurring. Court is the place to settle these kind of disputes, not on the street where gaining control of a dangerous and unknown situation is a paramount objective of officers

a reply to: SlapMonkey

At least the discussion was cordial, so there's that.

That has been a high note for me in recent days as well SM