Fop 1 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Police used stun gun on man, 89 Police have said a decision to use a Taser gun to control an 89-year-old man was necessary as he was threatening to cut his throat with a piece of glass. Officers from the North Wales force said the incident happened after the man had absconded from a care home. It was decided the use of a 50,000 volt stun gun was the "most appropriate" option to protect him during the incident at Llandudno, Conwy. The man was taken to hospital where he was treated for minor glass injuries. A spokeswoman for the force said the incident happened at 0630 GMT on Saturday after police received a report "expressing concern for the safety of an elderly man who had absconded from a care home in Llandudno". Police later found the man in Abbey Road, Llandudno, where he was threatening to cut his own throat with a piece of glass, she said. "In all the circumstances the specially trained officers made the judgement, in order to protect the life of the man, that the use of Taser was the safest and most appropriate option. "This was successfully done and the man was taken to Llandudno Hospital to be treated for minor glass injuries," she added. The man was later transferred to the care of Gwynedd Hospital in Bangor. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_west/7825962.stm So the only injures he had were from being tasered with a piece of glass in his hand, and when he dies from heart complications in 4 days time it has nothing to do with being tasered either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 27148 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Well if he was going to kill himself anyway... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted January 13, 2009 Author Share Posted January 13, 2009 Well if he was going to kill himself anyway... Yup they should have just shot him in case he took 100's with him. Except much like that 5 year old in the USA he almost certainly wasn't and there were likely 1000 better ways to deal with it. 2+ police officers couldn't overpower an 89 year old (or a 5 year old)? Well in this country maybe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeys Fist 39297 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 sounds like taffy had it coming Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted January 13, 2009 Author Share Posted January 13, 2009 sounds like taffy had it coming Aye, it's soon to be rolled out in all old people homes to deal with those that won't eat their tea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted January 13, 2009 Author Share Posted January 13, 2009 Driver faces jail over stun gun A lorry driver admits carrying a stun gun A Leith lorry driver is facing a possible jail term after being caught carrying a stun gun for self defence. Anthony McCrindle, 44, delivers goods all over Europe and began carrying the non-lethal weapon after being targeted by criminals during the night. McCrindle, was caught with the battery-powered device, for the second time, last February in East Lothian. He pled guilty at Edinburgh Sheriff Court to possessing a firearm without the appropriate certificate. The court was told self-employed McCrindle had picked up a car in Switzerland and driven home but pulled over to sleep after landing at Fisherrow Harbour, Musselburgh. It is a weapon of self defence which is legal in most European countries except for the UK Anthony McCrindle Police approached his vehicle at 0110 GMT and, describing McCrindle as seeming "nervous" asked if he had anything illegal. He admitted he had a stun gun and was arrested. Self-employed McCrindle, who earns up to £35,000 a year, told officers he had bought the non-lethal weapon in Switzerland for 69 euros after "incidents" involving himself and colleagues. Solicitor Alexander Lafferty, defending, said it was "common" for lorry drivers on the continent to carry stun guns and was not illegal in France, Germany, Holland, Switzerland or Italy, where McCrindle mostly worked. He had never had to use the weapon, said the lawyer. "He has been in danger in the past," said Mr Lafferty. "On occasions he has genuinely been in fear of his life. That relates to his and other colleagues experience. "He had been returning home from the continent and he had the item with him. He felt absolutely exhausted and stopped." Fiscal depute John Kirk, prosecuting, said McCrindle's explanation was "not unheard of". McCrindle, who has a previous conviction after being caught with a stun gun two years ago in Kilmarnock, will be sentenced next month after background reports. Previous conviction Sheriff Scott warned him all sentencing options remained open but allowed him to remain on bail. "This is a serious matter and you have a previous conviction for a very similar offence," the sheriff said. Speaking outside court, McCrindle, said drivers were targeted by criminals trying to break into the lorry while the drivers slept and illegal immigrants trying to board the vehicle. "When you are sleeping in a truck in the middle of nowhere it can be dangerous. I have had people slashing curtains to see what's in there. "The common one in Europe is getting gassed - you leave your window open for air and they fire gas in. "It is a weapon of self defence which is legal in most European countries except for the UK. "I pretty much guarantee if you stop a foreign driver in France or Germany or otherwise they will have a stun gun." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinbu...ast/7824282.stm Ok to use on 89 year olds, but not people trying to steal your lorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeys Fist 39297 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 What would be the legals on an 89 yr old lorry burglar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted January 13, 2009 Author Share Posted January 13, 2009 What would be the legals on an 89 yr old lorry burglar A lorry load of illegal 89 and 5 year olds, open season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeys Fist 39297 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Shocking! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted January 13, 2009 Author Share Posted January 13, 2009 Shocking! I can see why you and manc-foplite get on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeys Fist 39297 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 It's the way he types them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted January 13, 2009 Author Share Posted January 13, 2009 It's the way he types them I can see you liking him as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted January 22, 2009 Author Share Posted January 22, 2009 Complaint after OAP shot by Taser The case of an 89-year-old man, who was shot with a Taser gun by officers, has been referred to a police watchdog. Police said they used the device as the pensioner was threatening to cut his throat with a piece of glass in a street in Llandudno, Conwy. His family have now made an official complaint, which was referred by North Wales Police to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC). The force said afterwards officers made a judgement to protect his life. North Wales Police said all complaints over Tasers are dealt with by the IPCC. It was then up to the watchdog to decide whether to hold an investigation. 'Most appropriate option' A 50,000-volt stun-gun was used earlier this month because the man was threatening to cut his throat after he had walked out of a local residential home. Police feared he might kill himself and shot him in Abbey Road in the town. He was taken to hospital to recover from a minor glass wound. Police said afterwards that specially trained officers made the judgement in order to protect his life. They said that the use of the Taser was the "safest and most appropriate" option. The man's family have asked that his identity should not be revealed, to protect his dignity but have welcomed the referral to the IPCC. It is understood they felt that police should have given themselves more time to talk to him. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_west/7844079.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 After £ iyam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted January 22, 2009 Author Share Posted January 22, 2009 After £ iyam. Unless he dies from it, they'd never get their hands on any money that may be deemed payable anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 After £ iyam. Unless he dies from it, they'd never get their hands on any money that may be deemed payable anyway. Eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted January 22, 2009 Author Share Posted January 22, 2009 After £ iyam. Unless he dies from it, they'd never get their hands on any money that may be deemed payable anyway. Eh? He was in a home, chances are the local authority has his assets anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 After £ iyam. Unless he dies from it, they'd never get their hands on any money that may be deemed payable anyway. Eh? He was in a home, chances are the local authority has his assets anyway. So? That's assuming he has any assets. If he hasn't his family will be paying for him? Aye. If that's the case, any award would go towards paying for the home presumably. If he does have assets, any award would be added to them meaning the family (probably) gets them or at least there is more money before the assets run out and they have to start paying them, yes? No sure how it works so that's guesswork. I was initially being unduly cynical and my comment was a bit tongue-in-cheek but it's win-win for the family, should they get anything I'd assume. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted January 22, 2009 Author Share Posted January 22, 2009 (edited) After £ iyam. Unless he dies from it, they'd never get their hands on any money that may be deemed payable anyway. Eh? He was in a home, chances are the local authority has his assets anyway. So? That's assuming he has any assets. If he hasn't his family will be paying for him? Aye. If that's the case, any award would go towards paying for the home presumably. If he does have assets, any award would be added to them meaning the family (probably) gets them or at least there is more money before the assets run out and they have to start paying them, yes? No sure how it works so that's guesswork. I was initially being unduly cynical and my comment was a bit tongue-in-cheek but it's win-win for the family, should they get anything I'd assume. If he has no assets the local authority will be likely paying, if he still has assets they'll be using them (and the family can't just dip in and take what they like - even if someone from the family has legal control). So like I said the chances of them getting any more (assuming there would be any) is pretty slim. So they must be betting on him dying soon to get any cash that may result (in fact the local authority may even be able to go after that ). All in all I suspect they are probably just annoyed at their 89 year old father/grandfather being tasered. Edited January 22, 2009 by Fop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 If there's any assets left over the family get them. I know this is the case (or at least can be) because an Aunt of my Mam's died recently and she was in a home and my Mam sorted it all out. So there's at least potential benefit to the family. All in all neither of us know their agenda, even if yours is rather obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted January 22, 2009 Author Share Posted January 22, 2009 If there's any assets left over the family get them. I know this is the case (or at least can be) because an Aunt of my Mam's died recently and she was in a home and my Mam sorted it all out. So there's at least potential benefit to the family. All in all neither of us know their agenda, even if yours is rather obvious. Yeah there is a lower limit, but it's not a great deal - although it depends on the "category of care" given too. Either way they are unlikely to be getting anything more than they would be getting anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2bias 3 Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now