Re: Fears over Taser gun expansion
 

Shocking!

Re: Fears over Taser gun expansion
 

From the local paper - the picture shows where he was hit by the taser; he must have a very large groin, as that looks more like his stomach to me.:D

Re: Fears over Taser gun expansion
 

From the picture he certainly doesn't look like he'd act in an aggressive manner either. lol

Re: Fears over Taser gun expansion
 

Just read it on el reg ... wonder what kind of compo will come from that

Re: Fears over Taser gun expansion
 

http://www.policeoracle.com/news/Man...oin_25231.html

Talk about poor wording..

Re: Fears over Taser gun expansion
 

I'd like to say sod all seeing there was no intent to injure and no permanent damage but I'll wager the phone of the taseree has been swamped with ambulance chasers and the force will settle out of court with him.

Re: Fears over Taser gun expansion
 

That's an interesting one, "no intent to injure and no permanent damage" so shouldn't get any compensation.

Re: Fears over Taser gun expansion
 

It was an accident and there was no lasting damage. I don't see why compensation is required. :confused:

If you were crossing the road and get hit by a car but don't get injured should the driver cough up compensation to you?

Re: Fears over Taser gun expansion
 

I wasn't trying to say he SHOULD get compensation anyway... I should have been clearer. I'd be happy with an official apology letter. However, from the photo he looks a bit like Onslow from Keeping Up Appearances so it wouldn't surprise me if he didn't try to wangle some cash from that particular police force.

Re: Fears over Taser gun expansion
 

Except he was injured.

Re: Fears over Taser gun expansion
 

Two very small cuts resembling insect bites aren't injuries in my book.

Personally I'd like to think any compensation should be along the same lines as CICA (Criminal Injuries Compensation) in which case his 'injuries' get him squat.

I don't think its right that someone who received injuries in an accident, that arguably could be considered partly his fault, gets more than someone injured far worse through a criminal act.

---------- Post added at 09:34 ---------- Previous post was at 09:33 ----------

Oh and from the original article. (My bolding)

Re: Fears over Taser gun expansion
 

This is why we have PLI, or the Crown's equivalent.
50,000V across one's body is an injury.

My old lodger serviced and installed street lights. He was sent out to remove a light which had been hit by a car and supposedly had been made safe by one of his colleagues.
It wasn't, and the lampost had electrified the phone box next to it, which he brushed against and was thrown against the side of his van.
In your book he wasn't injured, yet he recieved compensation for their negligence and the pain he suffered.

Re: Fears over Taser gun expansion
 

In my book injury is lasting damage.

I've been CS'd by accident before. It was painful as hell but I've no lasting damage.

Should I have sued and got damages for that?

Re: Fears over Taser gun expansion
 

You? Hell no. ;)
Someone else, if they wanted then yes, they've been harmed through negligence.

PS Can I come and beat you with a rubber hose for an hour? They'll be no lasting damage...

Re: Fears over Taser gun expansion
 

Pre-planning an hour long beating with a length of hose doesn't come under any classification of accident I'm aware of.