Anorak

Anorak | Edric Kennedy-Macfoy v The Met – dial 999 for racism

Edric Kennedy-Macfoy v The Met – dial 999 for racism

by | 19th, April 2012

EDRIC Kennedy-Macfoy is a 28-year-old fireman from north London. He was trained as a police officer. On 3:45am on September 4, 2011, Mr Kennedy-Macfoy was driving his white Audi through Harrow. Police had shut down a party. Missiles were being thrown at them. Mr Kennedy-Macfoy spotted a black man toss a rock at a police van.

He tried to tell the police what he has seen. He has a description of the thug. He said the copper told him:

“Fuck off you prick.”

Mr Kennedy-Macfoy sees a line of police with riot shields. He drives towards them. He wants to know the name of the officer who has sworn at him. He wants to tell them who attacked the van. He also wants to find a way home. He alleges the police grabbed at him through his car window. He claims he was dragged from his car. He explained that he was a firefighter. As he walked backwards with his hands raised and open palms showing, police fire a stun gun at him. They shouted no warning. An officer just fired.

According to guidelines:

Background: IPCC position on TASER

2. When TASER was first introduced in 2003, prior to the inception of the IPCC, it had been agreed as part of the trial that police forces would refer any incident in which a TASER was discharged. This policy continued from the inception of the IPCC on 1 April 2004. The Police Complaints Authority had supervised the first few investigations into TASER discharges because of the considerable public interest, but since that time the vast majority of referrals were sent back to forces for local investigation.

3. As the number of TASER uses increased the referral policy became increasingly impractical and unnecessary, and the IPCC changed the criteria for referral in May 2005, to be consistent with referral of firearms discharges generally, i.e. that TASER discharges should only be required to be referred if the discharge:

* resulted in death or serious injury; * caused danger to the public, or * revealed failings in command.

4. This did not preclude forces voluntarily referring discharges in other circumstances if they thought it appropriate, bearing in mind the IPCC’s responsibilities for increasing public confidence.

ACPO states:

Oral and Visual warnings

11.1 Where circumstances permit, officers should give a clear warning of their intent to use the
Taser, giving sufficient time for the warnings to be observed, unless to do so would unduly
place any person at risk, or would be clearly inappropriate or pointless in the circumstances of
the incident.

11.2 It may in certain circumstances be appropriate to provide a visual display of the sparking effect
of the unloaded Taser in order to induce compliance, thus avoiding the need to actually
discharge the Taser at the subject.

11.3 The visual effect of the laser sight being directed at an individual may also have a deterrent
effect. Officers should be aware that the pointing of a Taser at an individual represents a use of
force and may in certain circumstances constitute an assault.

11.4 Police officers shall give the clear verbal warning ‘Taser, Taser’ indicating to all persons in the
vicinity that Taser is being discharged.

The

You have already read 1 premium article for free today
Access immediately the premium content with Multipass

Or come back tomorrow



Posted: 19th, April 2012 | In: News Comment | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink