So a man pours petrol over himself and the police taser him..

Who pours gas on themselves? I can think of a variety of methods that probably would have been a bit easier on the poor guy.

Not seen that episode. So where do this High voltage spark come from, is it from the gun or the prongs that enter the body?
If from the gun then it would have to have been fired close to the petrol vapours to ignite.

The prongs are charged with a high voltage which can cause a discharge spark, in the same way that nylon combs will through hair, but at a much higher energy. The embedded Taser barbs are not in contact, and tracking of the spark can occur over the surface of the skin or clothing.

Tasers run at 50,000 volts for the initial incapacitating shock, dropping to a repeated 1,200 volts for sustained effect. For comparison, the spark plugs in a petrol engine use 20,000 volts for air/fuel ignition.

Steven

Personally I doubt ‘the filf’ should be trusted with anything more lethal than a ……

cupcake.

The opinion of someone I know in the ‘trade’ so to speak, informs me that they were ‘nobbers’ who must have broken every rule and guidline on Tazer use in the book.
The rules ere on the side of safety and should be adhered to, and these two will face dsisciplinary no doubt.
She says.
Personally I doubt ‘the filf’ should be trusted with anything more lethal that a small truncheon.

On an episode of ‘Mythbusters’ they showed how police had accidentally set fire to a farmworker with a Taser, whose clothes had been contaminated with nitrogen fertiliser. So it is known that Tasers have a potential for igniting the clothing of its victims. It must have been obvious that such a high voltage spark would most likely ignite petrol soaked clothing. In those circumstances, a disabling spray, or an old-fashioned truncheon, might have been the better option.

Steven

Not seen that episode. So where do this High voltage spark come from, is it from the gun or the prongs that enter the body?
If from the gun then it would have to have been fired close to the petrol vapours to ignite.

A high pressure water jet would have been an even better option.:D

The trouble is that none of us were at that incident so we can not really say what happened.
best to wait till the inquiry is over then we might know more.

Meanwhile a question for all.
When is petrol poured onto a fire to put it out?

TonyT.
Using high voltage on a person covered in fuel in my eyes is just stupid, sorry but there has to be a better way, if two officers cannot take a suspect down without having to resort to a taser the world is going down the tubes. As folks said it will all come out in the wash as to why it happened.

Not really an answer to my question is it TonyT?
Nor have you suggested a better way.

Why slag off the police in the first place, if you now say it will all come out in the wash?

John Green.
Every report that I’ve read lays the blame for the conflagration squarely on the use of the Taser.

Would it be possible to share those reports?

On an episode of ‘Mythbusters’ they showed how police had accidentally set fire to a farmworker with a Taser, whose clothes had been contaminated with nitrogen fertiliser. So it is known that Tasers have a potential for igniting the clothing of its victims. It must have been obvious that such a high voltage spark would most likely ignite petrol soaked clothing. In those circumstances, a disabling spray, or an old-fashioned truncheon, might have been the better option.

Steven

Re 2
Richard Gray

Every report that I’ve read lays the blame for the conflagration squarely on the use of the Taser.

Tony T is quite right. I believe that our Police are largely ‘risk averse’. Why take a chance and stick your head above the parapet when you can shoot someone who looks or says that they are a threat.

There have been far to many instances of the Police avoiding any risk to themselves in situations that clearly pose some risk to life and limb. What are they there for ?

We’ll charitably assume that one of the cops got close enough to talk to this poor wretch and attempt at least a distraction, why then didn’t it lead to an attempt at physical restraint? No, use of the Taser was free of risk.

In the event that anyone thinks that I’m an ‘armchair commentator’, in my Service days abroad, we were often called upon to act in support of the civil power in one on one situations. We were robust and did our duty. Few got hurt.

Predictably, there will be the usual whitewash.

I agree Linc. Hindsight debates like this are pointless and achieve nothing.

[QUOTE=TonyT;2018818]Using high voltage on a person covered in fuel in my eyes is just stupid, sorry but there has to be a better way, if two officers cannot take a suspect down.

Tony me old friend,YOU are the Officer at the scene, you are aware he has dowsed himself in petrol, but instead of using the Taser, you run at him, grab hold of him by pinning both his
arms to his sides, which means “Hugging” him, but by now YOU have absorbed some of his petrol from his person, he manages to ignite himself with a lighter despite you having hold of him. Result, BOTH of you go up in flames.
Split second decisions are made on a daily basis by many Officers. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, sometimes, right, sometimes wrong.BUT they have to be made by the Officer dealing with the situation at the time.
Jim.
Lincoln .7

Using high voltage on a person covered in fuel in my eyes is just stupid, sorry but there has to be a better way, if two officers cannot take a suspect down without having to resort to a taser the world is going down the tubes. As folks said it will all come out in the wash as to why it happened.

There are too many “Ifs and Buts” on this subject so far, such as how long was it from receiving the 999 call to the Officers arriving at the scene?., Did they try and “Talk him down?,”
Did he even have a lighter or matches in his hands, was he depressed over something.
I have never seen what happens when a fired Tazer hits, but perhaps the Officers thought by doing it, it may have prevented what happened. Tazers are high voltage weapons, Electricity causes a spark, and I guess this is what happened.
I think their will be a lot of testing and re-thinking on the use of Tazers in the light of this.I certainly wouldn’t have liked to have been either one of those Officers, upon arrival at the scene, Rock and a Hard place it certainly was. No doubt both were traumertized after the event.
Jim.
Lincoln .7

What would be worse ,one person dying like this or the petrol poured over a larger area affecting more people and property,the police look like they were between a rock and a hard place.
If the man was going to kill himself only-well the outcome was the same BUT maybe they would have saved him before he lit the match.
How about a bit of thought for the poor police [no i am not a police man] who turned up to find this situation,they must be living in hell as well,what if ,what if.

Perhaps the issue was that he had covered himself in a highly flammable substance?

I feel sorry for the officers involved. What the hell has become of this country?

Why are you saying that TonyT?
your link says.

A man who had covered himself in petrol became a human fireball after police shot him with a Taser.

A police watchdog will investigate whether firing the weapon at Andrew Pimlott, 32, caused fatal burns.

Mr Pimlott suffered serious injuries in the incident on the evening of April 18.

He was taken to hospital and subsequently transferred to the specialist burns unit at Frenchay Hospital in Bristol, where he died five days later.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) said two Devon and Cornwall Police officers responded to a 999 call from a caller who said that Mr Pimlott was in a garden with a can of flammable liquid.

Shortly after the police arrived he sustained serious burn injuries and an ambulance was called.

An officer deployed a Taser during the incident in Honicknowle, Plymouth, the watchdog said.

IPCC Commissioner Sarah Green said: “My condolences go to Andrew’s family and friends for their loss.

“This must be a very difficult time for them and we have appointed a family liaison manager who is ensuring the family are kept informed.

“Our investigators have already carried out a number of actions, including interviewing the two police officers who attended the incident and ensuring relevant evidence has been secured.

“A post-mortem was carried out yesterday and further forensic analysis will be carried out.

“The IPCC had informed the coroner of our investigation and we will share our report in due course.

“Our investigation will be looking at what information was known to the officers attending the scene, the officer’s rationale for discharging a Taser on a person known to be doused in flammable liquid, whether the discharge of the Taser caused the fuel to ignite and we will look at training and policies.”

In separate statements, Mr Pimlott’s family paid tribute.

His parents wrote: “Dear darling son Andrew, you were a fantastic son to us, you will always be in our hearts and thoughts.

“We will never forget you. Be in our heart forever and always, we send a million kisses up to heaven.

“All our love Mum and Dad. xxx”

Nowhere in that report says exactly what happened at the incident.
My reading of it seeems completely different to yours.
It appears that it is not known if a Taser will cause the fuel to ignite.
usually if a person has covered themselves in petrol, they are likely to be threatning to ignite it for some reason or other.

So can you tell us what you would have done, if a man standing in front of you, covered with petrol is threatening to ignite it.

Even if you know that the taser may ignite the petrol would you fire it and hope that it didnt or do you let him flick his lighter?

One hellava decision to make in a split second I would say.